% o SNio^3?lcJr IN THE HONBLE HIGH CO^JRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR W.P. N0. "~7 "7 /2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS > -^c' ^ :^^ •^y '^^ 'l *4^,A'^ ^-^^_,^^'^/ '%^^^// ^"^^s^:^" Budhsen Boudh S/o Jaitram Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Sendri, Tah 85 P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa [C.G.] V^RSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D'.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] 2] Chhattisgarh Rajya Nirwachan Ayog, Raipur [C.G.] 3] District Election Officer [Collector] Distt. Janjgir-Chapipa [C.G.] , 4] Returning Officer [Panchayat] Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa [C.G.] 5] Omprakash S/o Sonauram, aged about 41 years, R/o Ward No. 1 Gram Panchayat Sendri, P.S.H. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] 6] Maniram S/o Parasram, aged about 37, R/o Ward No. 3, Grarn Panchayat Sendri, P.SH. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] 7] Tirith Ram S/ o Son Sai aged about 23 year R/o Ward No.-4, Gram Panchayat Sendri, P.S.H. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] 8] Kholbahra S/o Darshu aged about 32 years, R/o Ward No. 5, Gram Panchayat Sendri, P.S.H. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] .M ^ ,9] Santosh Kumar S/o Parmeshwar, aged about 18 years R/o Ward No. 12, Gram Panchayat Sendri, P.S.H. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] 10] Dhanau S/o Parasram, aged / about 29 years. R/o Ward No. 3, Gram Panchayat Sendri, P.S.H. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF^APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS OF CERTIORAR! AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS OR DIRECTIONS. ^i^r^Tf^N ^T^WiNNi' L -^^ <<INW ^ffr^i 'TST '^Tra^; ^^1-'-f^<o,'f^<?tTay .&e...^iJa^.. ^200 ^TI^T 11PR5' ( ^ty<<^) ^^iw^fi^^i^ ^o.i.aoos On a niention being made^ Shri Rajcev Dwivedi, couns| Shri Sumcsh Bajaj, counse) Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Scnior| ^N^^T W^T ^F 'fel^<Pa1t$« %^fRR:T^?t¥l ^he case is taken up fbr hearing. sl for the petitioner, for respondent No.l< Counscl with Shri Srinivas Rao, counsel for respondent No,2 to 4. Shri Rajesh Sharma, counsjel tbr respondei'it No.5 to 10. Heard learned counsel for t|he parties on the question of admission as well as on M.W.P. The petitioner has preferre<ji this }3etition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India cha|Ie2iigmg the jorder dated 29.12.2004 passed by rcspondent No.3 thcre}j>y rcjecting the noniination paper of the petitioner for the post of SarpanclJi of Grani Panchayat, Sendri. Thc casc of thc pctitioncr is that hc belongs to Othcr Backward Classes being a converted Buddl|iist from Scheduled (^aste, (^onversion certificate is Annexure P-1 and li^t of other backward classes is Annexure P-2 to the writ wtition. The i^tit Lhe post of Sarpanch being an OlpC candidate but whexi symbol was not allotted to him, he approached respondent No.3 informed him rejected. Therefore^ respondente case of the petitioner for elections In rcply filcd by rcspondcii ihe post of Sarpanch of Gram effect, but he filed only certificat^ not fall within the purview o| .oner submitted his nommatioii fonTi for respondent No.3 on 31,12.2004 and that his nomination paper has been concerned be directed to consider the of Gram Panchayat Sendri. t No,2 to 4, it has bccn mentioned that Panchavat Sendri is reserved for OBC candidates and petitioner was i^quired to.submit a certincate to that from Buddhist community, which does OBC categoty. It has been further GRPRJ—FS/35Q— 12/2000—50,000. XI-HC—78 ^ITH^r 5b*Si<sb ~3^r T^i^i<n^, ^Til<rij{<o, |[^<nj^i^< .;......^.£..^.^..k.^:.. 1R^200 37^-q^7(^<s|<^) 'STT^T'^T R^Jcb PT^T^l^T ^<4ict» Y; -^ ^RHW^I^ ^T^T —T--\ lln^tlLl6i'led in the reply that pelitiont before cancellation/rejection of 11011)1: has not submitted anv certificate class coniniunity, therefore, the arisc, Copy oforder i.s Anncxure R-4 Learned counsel for the petitij: converted Buddhist from Schedul€<t the converted Buddhists falls ui1 contention of Shri Murthy, Senior| that unless the petitioner submit^ authority to the effect that he bel^ considered as backward class andl been rejected. Thc clcction is schcduicd to| and in this matter disputed facts ai in this writ jurisdiction, therefore, reiief by invoking jurisdiction und| india and on this ground alone the dismissed/Therefore, the petition di Howeve.r, the pefcitioner is at liberfy] to him under the law. Consequently, M,V7.P. No.71/^ cbNfd^il^ 'RT^ ^ f^t if^^K ^37RR3?7^T allordeci of hear ar was allorciecTopportunity ot' hearing ination paper and since the petitioner :o show that he belongs of backward qu^^tion of allotting any synibol does not ?ner submitted that the F^titioner is a Caste and as i^er list Annexure P-2, tder the category of OBC, whereas Counse! for respondent No.2 to 4 is certificate issued by the competent >ngs to OBC category, he cannot be therefore, his non'iination paper has bc held on 2'3,1.2005 ' ; C^ ..• . ; - fe involved which cannot be gone into |ie pe.titioner is not entitied to get the ar Article 226 of the C^onstitution of t)etition of the i^etitioner is liable to be smissed at the admission stage itselt to avail alternative remedy available 05 also stands disiTiissed, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge