IN THE, mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, C.G. WMT ¥KTmOS BQ. SZ'fcS /2005 (Petition nadei Aiticle 226/227 of the Coastitutioa of India) PBTIT[OIIERS ; ^l) /// fM'/^ ^@f/ /3) ? 0 /XV .?.0\>./ o^y €^/ •s ^^s^ »»"*•»< v° Umesh KumarSingh, aged about 46 yeaxs, S/o laten Shri Vedanaad Kunwar, at present worfcmg as a Deputy Ranger, Social Forestry Division, Forest Division JagadaJpur, Distt.Bastar,C.G; M.M. Upadhyay, ^ed about 55 years, S/0 Dals%ar Upadfayay, at present worlEU^ as a Depuly Ranger, Bijapur Forest Division, Distt. Danteswada, C.G. Parmanand Tiwari, aged about 54 years, S/o late Kapil Dev Tiwari, at present WDridcg as a Deputy Raxiger, Forest Division Datewada, Distt. Dantewada, C.G. Janardan Singta, aged about 56 years, S/o late Baijnath Swgh, a.t present workmg as Deputy Ranger, Bastar Forest Division at Jagadsdpur, Distt. Bastar,C.G. PuTanlal Soni, aged about 52 years, S/o late Tulsjram. Sotii, at present worldng as Dy. Ranger, Bastar Forest Division at Jagadalpur, Dlstt. Bastar, C.G. Sundar Singh Smion, aged abput 55 4) ^51 years, S/o late Simon, at present ^w ^ workmg as Dy. Ranger, Bastar] TOTest Division at Jagadalpur, Distt. Bastar, C.G. . • 1 :• ; : . I .- ^ 7) Subramaniyam Rao, aged about 48 years, S/o late Jagsuuiath I^uo, at preseut woi^^ as Dy. Ranger, Daiitewaida, F^rest ^lwision ati Diit&. DaiitewEedsi, C.G. ^ ^£ lir'R"l<!!:'fliflihtittl^ f»tffl?l? i fS^ ^v Ki EsB <9) Sahdeo Kum.ar Nag, aged about 52 yeeu-s, S/o Shri Chandan Nag, Bastar (G) Forest Division at Jagadalpur, Distt. Bastar, C.G. Vinay Kumar Chetfcravorti, aged about 44 years, S/o kite B.C. ChaJsTawirti, at present working as Dy. Ranger, ladrawati Tiger Reserve, Forest Division Bijapur, Distt. Dantewada, C.G. VERSUS y^?%^ '^e,"^:'^, RESPOaDEMTS i ^l) /2) 3) StateofChhattisgarh,through £he Secretaiy, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Chief Coiiserva.tor of Forest, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. ConservatoT of Forest, Jagada^pur Cu-cleatJagadalpur,DJstt.Bastar,C.G. DMUT PBimOir UIIDE»ARTICTE 226/227 OFIHB COWSTITiraiOiy QyiMMA FtWISSILUlca^OFAPPR^FRIATE WRn-OFMAMDiAMUS/C^RnGiRAm.OiRBE^O]^^ DIREClIOII/IMKECTroaS ETC;. XI-HC-78 ^•Dc|.-yi^lri'i|;wri1'<'f*i<»;firtmy<< qiiCTi as'n^ ^^..g^^^^O 3IRt9T(R^(^clijcl^) i--\. girt?TTiR»|i<t> gairsiI^nsFira; g^iTiSR^ftaail^CT 27.10.: Shri Vishnu Koshta, couitsel Shri P.S. Koshy, Dy. advancecopy. ilsel for the petitioners. Advocate General for the State on This is an application for| The matter is taken u^ stands disposed of. urgent hearing. on Board. This Interim application Heard on admission. Leaned counsel for the d were promoted to the post of| vide orders dated 19.12.20001 P/4). He further submits that tl| as an effect and conseqi^ Committee (DPC) which was !) that thereafter, memos have Annexure-P/5-A to: P/5-1 (^ examination made by the recommendation dated 5.9.: aforesaid promotions ofthe pe1| mistake committed by the earli| to the petitioners have been cases ofthe petitioners. He filed their reply on the notic^ submits that the promotion Government was not a c|)l^[d41'1 t|!*fri1"*t" fs<<3 •<KI'<Slf ^gif^Hsirt?! jetitioners submits that the petitioners Forest Dy. Rangers from Foresters |and 10.12.2001 (Annexures- P/3 & icir orders of promotion were issued ^ence of Departmental Promotion !teld on 14.12.2000. He also submits peen issued to the petitioners vide |ving common contents) that on pronlotion examination committee and its .2QOp, it has been recommended that the ptioners have been effected by some i^r D.P.C; and some senior persons lef|t bythe D.P.C. while considering the submits that the petitioners have ^/memos issued to them. He also committee constituted by the corrtoetent committee to examine the eft further exarhination XI-HG-78 m*taiyfff^ vj-otfrTA|i)lei^^u>-fll'(i<is,Ri<»i'(iy<( M:£.^&...^.z&.fflM°i.. ^200 sn^wq^^^fg^g) ^ SD^CTTOf^W ^^raTOT^TWire STBIiR^HfeiaiI^ST ^ recommendations of the D.P.Q the report Qfthis committee da( petitioners submits that thoug) pefitioners but the same havif petitioners in their repty/rep} authority. ; ! have heardthe learnedl The memos/notices (Anf of this Court, are in form of th4 to why earlier promotion !ist recommendations made by t^j date 5.9.2005. ; At this initial stage of| entertainment of writ petition i^ the Apex Court that unless, fh^ causenotjce was totally non e| of jurisdiction of the authorit^ petitions should not he entertt matter of routine and the writ to respond to the show cause in the writ petition. Whether thj any iegal premises is a jurisdic|t by the recipient of the adjudicated by the authority i^i jurisdic|tional notfce <l>l'!|fd41-1+l!*)dl'^'(s'^l'<lu!tsy ^grf^TanSCT' 1, therefore no action can be taken on ted 5.9.2005. Learned counsel forthe |i these grounds are available to the ^ not been raised effectively by the ^esentations before the concerned [counsel for the petitioners at length. fiexure-P/5-A to P/5-1), in the opinion show-cause noticeswhich intend as i|nay not be cancelled in view of the )e promotion examination cpmmittee notice, the taw to beapplied for now well settled. It has been held by High Court is safisfied that the show |t in the eye of !aw for absolute want to even investigate into facts, writ ^ined for the mere asking and as a p|etitioner should invariably be directed |iotice and take allstands highlighted i^ show cause notice was founded on issuewhich can^even be urged and such issues also can be jsuing the very notice jnitially, before -•s^^ XI-HC-78 ^•cc|T^14tri«,yTn<<l<l6,Rrtf<-ig<< ^,^,u..p...uo...:.e.2..^/^ 3I1^?T CR^ ('pfg^S) 3n^?TOT:R-<i<t> \ aairsn^STAtii* AM ^fw ^ s^aiw^ifia 3it^?T -s: the aggrieved could approach GhWam'Gliouse and Anr.i ;tafie. ;B In viewbHhe abovejuipgi withthis.iwrjt.petitjon at thisstafie At this stage, learned though the representations/reF)li before the concerned author|ty highlighted in this petition have| concerned authority, liberty be| reply/-repr8sentation against th^ In fighf ofthe aforesaid ^i the authority has not taken an| be given an opportunity to fiie| constitution of the ^romotion raised by the petitroners shal| before passing any order in already been taken by observations/directions will With the above finally disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P. of. juipgment, ! am not inclined to interfere intl[o»<I1iiiioT^'ls^l'tfuitsi'; *9rf^T.3II^T the Court. fPlease see JT 2004 W ^unsel for the petitioners submits.that |lies have been filed by the petitioners as stated above, but the points not been raisedeffectively before the Igranted to the petitioners to file fresh i^ notice/memo dated 14.10.2005. lubmission, it is herebydirected that if i^ decision so far, the petitioners shall a fresh reply raising the point about ^xamination committee and this point be dulycQnsidered by the authority |the matter but if any decision has the concerned authority, these no force. >, the petition stands ha\fe observbtions/directions, ls>|o. 4267 of 2005 also stands disposed Sdf- . , | Sunil KumarSinha Judge