-/c. •^ •^K, HIGKC^yRTOFJUDICAmFSCHHATTISG^SHLBILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ PEimONER RESPONDENTS W,P, N0,4408 oT 2006 Khirod Kumar Das S/o Shri Krishna Chandra Das Aged about 35 years Resident of Devendra Nagar D-65, Pandari, District Raipur ChhatBsgarh V^RSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through ttie Secretary General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur ChhatBsgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through it's Chairman, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Present: Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. A.G. with Shri Sanjay S Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent No.l/State. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri V.R. Tiwari, learned counsel forthe respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 04UISeptember, 2006) Should 1 say, this writ petltion is not only premature but also does not disclose the post for which the petitioner has applied. It is stated that the petitioner is a candidate and he appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the 2" respondent herein in the year 2005. It is alleged that in spite of his excellent performance the petitioner was declared (ailed in the preliminary test due to wrong application of scaling by ttie 2"d respondent- Commission. It is complained that due to false scaling, candidates appearing in particular subject are given preference in the selection while )<<<WTl<'- -r? those who opted for selected subject inspite of brilliant performance could not succeed In qualifying the preliminary examination. (2) The petiUoner has not disclosed in the writ petition the post to which he has applied in the year 2005. Be that as it may, there is no necessity for the Court to undertake adjudication of the complaint made by ttie petitioner at this state. tt is not his case that the 2 respondent- Commission has prepared the select list and on the basis of such list appointments are made by the State Government. It is needless to state that the select list that may be prepared by the 2" respondent or the appointments that may be made by the recruiting agency if it is vitiated on any permissible ground, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the validity of the select list as well as the appointments made in pursuance ofthe such list in an appropriate legal proceedings. There is no need nor expedient for the Court to review the validity of each and every step taken by the 2 respondent-Commission in the process of selection and appointments and if the Court were to do so, it would only delay the selection and appointments to Uie advertised poste thereby hampering the smooth administration of the State. In that view of the matter, 1 decline to entertain the writ petition, leaving open all the contentions made in this writ petition to be agitated by the petitioner at an appropriate stage. Nocosts. Sd/- ChiefJustice gK--—^..^, ^^^sssss^