Q^3 \^r^> IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fW.P.fS)No......^.^.^.... ./09) PETITIONER b»»»li» .<<^ A^^ ^••^}^ Chandru Ram Choudhary S/o Shyam Lal Choudhary Aged ^^y" Abou ar R/o Harra >...-^>v- ^:^". ^••" RESPONDENDS About3^ear ] -^ Padaw S^rdogar Tah.- Keshkal /^- VERSUS : 1. Distt.-Bastar (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh, Through : Secretary Welfare tribal development department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner Welfare tribal development department, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 4- The Deputy Collector, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (V<t^^- 'T) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF TNDTA ,.^ H!GH_CQURTgFCHHATTISGARH^ WRIT PETITION (8) N0.4090 OF 2009 PE'napNER Chandru Ram Choudhary Versus RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articfe 226 of the Constttution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. 2. ORDER(C»RAy (Passed on thss 1 sfday ofMarch. 2011) Heard Jearned counsel for the parties. Chailenge in this petition is to ®ie orier ctated <^/08/2008 (Annexure P/5) whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment on the post of peon on collector rate, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner dtd not meet the required standard for appointment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits ttiat the name of the petltioner was forwarded by the employment exchange. The petitioner received a notice on 05/08/2003 (Annexure P/2) to submit certlficates I.e. 5th & 8th class certificate, caste certificate, domicjle certificate and registration with employment exchange. The petitioner has submitted all the required certificates. Desplte ttiat the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he did not meet the Tequired standard. The rejection is on the ground of vague and unspecified reasons. Thus, the Assfetant Commissioner, Tribal Wetfare, Jagdalpur may be direcAed to conslder the case of the petitsoner a fresh and pass appropriate orders. v i./' ,^; ^' Arun 4. On hearing leamed counsel for the parties, it appears that the entire process of appointment for the post of peon throvgh employment exchange was done without toSlowing the constitutionat scheme of employment. Even if the petitioner has been noticed to submit certificates, which the petitioner h^s produced, stiti direction to make ilSegal appointment cannot be issued by this Court. 5. St Is well settled principle of law that the appointment withoyt proper advertisement prohibiting the opportunities to other eligible candidates to participate in the seiection process for a post is illegal, as the same is cte hors the constitutionat scheme of employment. (See: Anand Kumar Swi v. State of Chhatiisgsrh & Others1). 6. tn view of foregoing, no such direction to do itlegal act, can be passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indja. 7. Aocordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto coste. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 W.P.(S) No.6436/2010 (decided on 18th February, 2011)