^ ^AV^S^. ^y^^^y^ ^'•KfY<^"-./-^" ^-•^.^" ..--^ .^c^w" ..*"*' ^^ ^^^ co C/P-v IN THE HIGH COURT OF CJIHATTISGARH JVDICATURE AT BILASPUR •^ Petitioner Respondents ^__ W.P.('S)No."————2011 Nohar Lal Dheewar, Aged 46 years, S/o Shri Harkhoo Ram Dheewar, HeadMaster, Govt.Middle School, Kumhi,(Phingeshwar), Dist-Raipiu- Versus l.State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, Ministry, D.K.S., Bhawan Raipur, /e'hhattisgarh. 2. The District Education Officer, Raipur Raipur (C.G.) i. Block Education Officer, Block Education Office Phingeshwar Block, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT_PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 O.F THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Singje Bench; Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J, WRTTPETmON (St N0.2777 of 2011 Petitioner Respondents Nohar Lal Dheewar Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2778 OT2011 Petitioner Smt. Sarswati Namdeo Respondents Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETmON(S»N0.2779 of 2011 Petitioner Bheekham Lal Sinha Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Respondents Petitioner Respondents WRITPETITION (S) N0.2780 of 2011 Patiram Yadeo Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition under Articte226/227 oftheConstitution oflndia Present:- Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Deputy AdvocateGeneral for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 15th of June,2011) Thjs common order shallgovern disposal of W.P.(S)No.2777,2778, 2779 and 2780 of 2011, as issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar. -iliftl SBM uoiijied eiji }eqi psuiLuqns jeyyn^ issunoo paiueai 'i.i.oz-tO-SO psiep japjo ayi }0 souanbasuoo e se MO|P^ iou saop- qoiyM 'OS|B sjauoiiiiad 841 ^o japjo uoiioiuojd 3416u!iaoueo mou aje ssnuoqine luspuodsa^ si|i 'ynoo ayi jo japiio aqi Suiiajdjsiuisiiu pue 6u!nj}suoosjiu 'psysenb 8eM uoipaiss io yed B A|UO 'suoiiBsd pw p yoieq EU! ynoo siy} jo yousg uoisiAia 941 Aq pessed |, IOZ-10-SO pa»epjspjo epiA yBnoy} ieqt psuiiuqns sjsuojiitad CT jo^ [ssunoo psujeai -paqsenb os|e SEM looqog 8|pp!M 'Jaisein pesH {o )sod 34} o) tuetutuiodde joj panssi luaiuasiysApesiitpuB paysenb SBM 8003 ^osainy 941 p ||-a|npe4os p g'ON'-iS 10 ^.-ON uiunioo ^o Z-ON Ajtus 'LQOOZ P sa|ny» 04} se Q} psiiajaj jayBuisjay) 9002 'sainy uoBoiuojcf pue tuauiumoay (sojAJSS IOASI 100405) SOIAJSS pswzeo uoiteonpg looijos 4JB6s!UByqo ui pauiB}uoo suoisiAojd uieyao p At|p!|eAp3pn|OUj i|oiyM 'spunoj6 snoueA uo sseoojd p uonoeias BujBusiieiio sjayoesi p jequinu Aq p8|y suoffiiad (UM lejaAssuo 'jsueajaLii 'jaAaMOH 'OI.OZ -80-^.Z p3»epjspjo spiA peyipoiu se OtOZ-80-eZ P3»Bp japjo epjA 100403 8|PP!W '^SISBM PB&H 10 (SOd QW o} pa)oiuojd OJSM Aayi 'uonoaias jsye pue (e^ ajnxauuv) OIOZ-ZO-81. paiBp luauiasiyaApe o} tuensjnd 'uoneuiuiExs |e)uaiuyedap patituii yfinojtji uonoaias ^o ssaoojd 941 ui psiedioBjed peq sjeuoiiBsd SM»\B{\\ psn6je &isuoni}9d 94) jo^ issunoo p^UJe^^ •£ •psioiuojd SJOM Xeiit 'yoiiiM uioj^ 'isod sy} 0} psyaAaj sjeuoitiisdaqi pue ps||3oueo uaaq aAeq QIOZ 'uo.itBuiLuexs |Eiu9Luyedsp pai!UJ!| ySnojyi sjsuoiutad eyuouououiojd 'yoiMMAq 'jndiey 'jaouo "ORBO"p3 IOUISIQ ayi Aq passed (|,-d ajnxsuuv) I.I.OZ-SO-ll. psiep japjo p Aijpi|eA pue sseutoejjoo peiiesse BAeq sjauonitsd eqi 'suoBnad p i|0teq siqi Ag •z allowed only to a limited extent and the order did not have the effect of canceting the whole process ofselection, but only in a lirpited manner. He further submits thateven though, advertisement was quashed, the petitioners promotion could not be withdrawn on the basisofthe order of the Court without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the respective petitioner. 4. On the other hand, leamed Deputy Advocate General submitted that the process of selection for appointment by way of promotion through limited departmental examination initiated vide advertisement dated 18-02- 2010 was challenged on various counts in number of writ petitions, whfoh were decidedby a common order dated 05-04-2011. He further submitted that the Division Bench ofthis Court held that non-inclusion of Headmaster Primary School having requisite qualification in Entry No.2 (a) and (b) of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-11 of the Rules of 2008 is discriminatory, as the same deprives eligibie Headmasters of Primary School from participating in the departmental limited examination. Learned State counsel further submitted that when the Court found that the entire class of Headmaster Primary School wasillegally excluded from selection processfor promotion to the post of Headmaster Middle School, the Division Bench ofthis Court quashed Entry No.2 of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-11 appended to the Rules of 2008 as also quashed the entire advertisement, andtherefore, thereis no scope left forthe State to continue the petitionerson the promoted post as the entire process of selection has been declared illegal. \&L Buueaq 10 Aiiunyoddo 0} paiiji.us ajsm Asyi tB^t ^suoiiited 941 joi |asunoo paiueai jouoissiiuqns 'seoueisiunojo jeiinoad esaiiiui 'ynoo siiiip youeg uoisiAia si|l Aq patjsenb usaq seq yoi^M 'tueiuasiysApe 941 0} luen&ind epeiu luauituiodde aqt |eoueo o( jdaoxa seiiyoqineeijt i|tm ya| uoiiejosip ou si ajaiij. •paiuiodde uaaq aAey pue uoipsias .(0 ssaoojd 8i|} 01 psiostqns 'paildde pey sjeuoiiiiad ai|i 'qoiijM japun 'iuauissiyaApe aij} paysenb seii ynoo siyi p youag uoisiAia a4»ie4}JBS|O AnuajEdde sjoiejsiji si u •9 •paysenb uaaq OS|B aAei) 100403 s|PP!lftl 'Jatsei/y pesH jo tsod syt joi sioutsiQ |euo!ieonp3 paiuaouoo 341 10 sjaoy^o uoi^sonpg puisiQ aAjpadssj Aq panssi luaujasiyaApe 941 'A|}uanbssuoo pue 9002 pssiny 341 i0 ||-a|np84os p E'ON'JS Z'ON uiun|oo io Z'ON Ajiug ay»psysenb Ijnoo siq} p 40U88 UOISIAIQ aqi 'AIIBUIJ •uoiieuiuuexe uiu!) |Btueiuyedap 34} ui Buiiedioiijed 010.1^ 100409 ^eiuud sjaiseiupesH aiqi&iessAudep SIUBS ai(l se '^iOteuiuiuosjp si 800Z P sa|ny aqi p ii-ainpsyog jo e ON'JS 10 L'W uuin|oo p (q) pue (e) Z'ON Ajiug ui uoiieoyiienb ausinbsj SuiAey 100405 giiuud 'j8}SBuipeaH p uoisniouj-uou teijt p|ay pue uoipsias jo sseoojd sifr ui saitiLujyui |ejaA9S psiou ynoo SIIB p youag UOISIAIQ si<} 'suoiusd )UM 341 ui spunoj6 snoucA ^o uoiiBjapisuoo pai|e}ap jayv •suoitj^d IUM i0 yofeq aq»ui eBuaiieyo japun SBM yoiijM 'uoipeias jo sseoojd aiues si<i 01 paioefqns OS|B ajaM sjsuoiuad sqi teqi aindsip ui pu si () •ps6u3||e40 SBM uojioaias p ssaoojd 94} pue 'ssiny aqi ui psuietuoo suoisiAOJd uieyeo a4t }o <}!P!|BA 6u!6ua||e4ospunoj6 tuaiayip 'uoiijiad IIJM yoea u| '800Z io ssiny ui pauieiuoo se 'uoiieuiLuexa leiusuiyedap Sunonpuoo jo uoiiipuoo ayi pue ADPJIBA leuoitnuisuoo ayi 01 e6ua||e40 psui.uiexa 'suoiuied tiJM io yo}eq ui psssed i.tOS-frO-SO psiBpjspjo sii ui qousg UOISIAIQ si|i 9 ^ has to be rejected at the threshold. In exceptional cases like the present one, where order of canceltation of promotion has been passed on the ground that the process of selection has been quashed by theCourt, could not be assailed on the ground that the petitioners were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before canceting the order of promotion. It is a case of foregone conclusion. 7 In view of the aforesaid, 1 do not find any merit in aforestated batch of writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed summarily at the stage of motion itself without issuing notice to the respondents. No orders as to cost. A copy of this order be placed in the connected matters also. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Dwpli 'Jttllltitit? "'^^i.S^e-;