/ ^ SSngi®B©nch BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.\ OF 2011 PETITIONER t ,\N.l. ^^ ^:^ ;.>-::;"M^ ^^•••- '^•••"' ^ RESPONDENTS ^.-- ....-•- DIGIVUAY DAYAL, S/o Shri D.R.Dayal, aged about 33 years, Asstt. Distt.Public Prosecution Officer, Ambikapur District -Surguja[C.G.] VERSUS S't'ate of Chhattisgarh, Through- Principal Secretary Department of Law & Legislative , Affairs, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.G. 2. High Court of Chhattisgarh Through- Registrar General Bilaspur [C.G.]. 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA o mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (S) No. 3186/2011 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Digivijay Dayal Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Appearance: Shri Ashok Swamkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govemment Advocate forthe State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondentNo.2. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (24.06.2011) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties the petition is heard finally. (2) In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is a reserved category candidate has ehallenged action of concemed respondent and consequent issuance of list of ineligible candidates, wherein he has been declared ineligible for appearing in the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Preliminary Examination, 2011 to be held on 26/06/2011. (3) Admittedly, the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on account of non-submission of caste certificate along with his application. (4) According to the petitioner, on a proper reading ofthe contents [of advertisement submission of caste certificate at the stage of ^ :cws%.-, /' ^ I llls?1^ '& ~""". // t'^y '';v^.^k:l" -2- preliminary examination was not required, therefore rejection of his candidature is illegal. (5) On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent would argue that the terms ofadvertisement together with the instructions to candidates clearly provide that when some kind ofrelaxation in fee or otherwise is claimed, submission ofcertificate was necessary. (6) This court has already dealt with this issue in Writ Petition (S) No. 3084/2011 (LaUt Jangde Vs. ffi^i Court of Chhattisgarh) wherein it has been held by this court that in the absence of submission of caste certificate by a reserved category candidate, the candidature was rightly rejected. t- (7) The order passed in the case of Lalit Jangde (supra) shall govern the instant petition also. (8) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (9) A copy ofthe order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 3084/2011 be kept in the record ofthis file. - prashantKumarMish" Judge v-