-f' THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON fS) N0.1 f -^-OOF 2007 PETITIONERS ....^ >6}^1' .^ 3^-3^''..--""" .9"/V<-" RESPONDENTS * j S.R. Ksushih ) ?? i /I] Krishna Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shri Narbdeshwar Tiwari, Aged about 23 years, R/o E-19 Ganesh Enclave, Chhoti Koni, District-Bilaspiu- (C.G.) 2] Gautam Kumar Pradhan, S/o Shri Lakhau Lal Pradhan, Aged about 23 years, R/o ViUage Ratanpin- Karihapara, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) ^3] Ramaym Prasad Siuyawanshi, S/o Shri Bund Ram Suryawanshi, Aged 25 years, R/o Village Gautara, TahsU- Masturi Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS /' 1] State ofChhattisgarh, Through Secreatary Revenue Department, Raipur (C.G.) 2] Commissioner Land Records, Raipiu- (C.G.) , 3] Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ^^ '<K"lt7 WMT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 427 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitwn (Sl No. 1170 of2007 Petitioners Versus Respondents: Krishna Kumar Timari and others State of CUhattisgaA aa offaers Sta^te B«nch:Hon'bte Mr. Justfce SaUsh K. ABnUiatri. Present' Mr. L.P. Dubqr, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Depuly Govcnunent Advocate fiw fhe State/Bespondente. ORDBR (Passed on 28U> day ofFehruary, 2007( The following order offhe Court is passed by Satlah K.Apdlwtsl, J. 1. By this pctition, the petidoner seeks dirBction a^Baast the respondents to send them for Patwari Tiaiamg. 2. The petitfoners were in the waitfng list of 172 candidates. The 88 candadates were sent for trainiDg in accoidaace with their seniorily. The petitioners have pointed out that tbcre are some peraons who are down below and have been scnt for teaiaiag. ^- 3. On pcrusal, it is foiuid that the peraraas who have been sent for teaining do not betoi^ to genetal categoiy and they are the candidates other tfaan general category i.e. from O.B.C., S.C. andS-T.. -- - _ 4. The petittoners are not m a position to poiat out asto whefher any person of geiieral categoiy, placed down in tfac waiting Mst, has been scnt for trainu^. 5. It is well setfted fhat a peraon has right to be considered for appoiatment in acoordaiicc wifh fhe coiistitutwaal schemc. The petitioiicre have no Tifftxt to appointinent except in case of discrinunation and arbitcariness. The petitiDnera have not pointed out aiiy discriiamation by shoiwing that aay geaeral caadidate, placed dowu betow in fhe waitmg list, has been seat fer Patwari Trauuag. This Court in exercise of its jurisdtctun under Article 226 of the Coiistitutton of ladia caunot direct fhe Govenunent to send a person for trainiag out of tum wifhout foBowing fhe waitmg list This aeeias to be a casc wherein tfae petitioners want a ducctioa for scndiag thcni to Patwari TBaming outoftura. 6. Thus, this petitton is devoki of ment It deserves to be and is disnussed sunanaarffly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhasb