(L^- .) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WMT APPEAL N0. /2010. APPELLANT: PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: 1. RESPONDENTS Chetan Khadatkar, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Mohan Rao Khadatkar, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur, CG VERSUS f State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, D K S Bhawan, Raipur (CG)_ 2. / State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) ( 3.' P. K. Janwade, Aged about 55 years, Incharge Chief Engineer, Pyblic Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. ^., Chhattisgarh State High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through Director, Pandit Deendayal UpadHighway Nagar, Ravishankar University Campus, Raipur. WRIT APPEAL_UN_DER SECTIQN 2_OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (AJ'PEAL_TQ_D!yiSIQNBENCH1 ACT, 2006. The appellant named above rnost hunibly and respectfully begs to prefer the instant appeal feeling aggrieved by the A ! • y - - judgment dated 12-3-2010 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court m W. P. (S) No. 1047/2010 (Parties being Chetan Khadatkar Vs. State. of Chhattisgarh and 3 others) inter-alia on the grounds which involve the following facts:- 9ittiBf^:: HI<3H COURT QF CHHATTISQflBW^T BILASPUR DBsHon'MeShRJustiGel.M.Gtuddusi Hon(bteSttre.lUstteePi'S hanfKumariMistea. ARPELLANT RESPONDENTS WritADDS^No.129/201(t VCTSUS Stirte of GhhaUis otheiS. Shri P.S. Ktehy, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocale for the Statis. jORAL QRD& Perl.Nl. Qyctdysi.J, (2) This writ appeal has been fitesi against the impugnsd order dated 12^3-^)10 passedbytheleamedSmgte Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1047^10 (fismissir^the^tpetiticm.^^ (3) ln short, the petttioner has apprQached the Chhattisgarh Stsrte Hig^ Power Ca^e SGTidiny Commfttee with F^ard to the respondent No.3^ who is holdir®Ihe p^t of Irwshaffgs Engineer lRChief,PubliGWfflt(sDq)aE+me(A,RaipyFonthe allegationihathedbesnQtbe^ongtoSd'edyledCaste^but he has mentioned NmselT as msnAer of Scheduted Caste cpmmunity, but the Stefte Hgh Power Gaste Scrutiny Coinmfttee-tias fee^rt the matter pendii®ahd has d^rsd th8t the petftioner sfell make some dcx;ymente avaiable, thathasalsbbeenmadeavaUaye; ">p The leamed Stngtedudge dismissed thevmt groyndttsatonceamatteris^psixlffgbefore ion OR the ^No.l4 le.ChhErttisgarhSt^eHshPowerGasteSor itwQuldnotbejWQRertoetAertaiRthe^petBion^tthisste^e and iiBerty wa& reserved tothe wrft appetlant to (nal(e ftesh <5) We do ncrt find any illegalityor impropne^as the^^^ agains^respondentNo.3wasf^isteredt>yStaleHghF'<n r Ca^eScrutinyGomro^eean^theiOTestsattQntegoit'^ HoweveT,wefeslthatthe State Hah Power Oaste aFKl|hsgu^eiii Court In tl-ie case x>f inquiry^iiouM be corrciuded by Ui( Scrutiry Coramsttee as ®w!yas ^tesy^d byAMe Hori'tri&Supreme AMI.CommisSKmei,TribalD^elopinwtaiulQtOieis,AS9 f885SCS4Shou!dbestri<stlyfollowsd. (7) With the above^6sepifation, the wrS ^peal ^ands disposed \-. , '.' .' .• . •. '.;'..• '-• ."• '. . ' of. Sd/- . „, ^.Q^ "' iudse Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge