£ '\^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Appellant- (Petitioner) Respondents (Respondents) WritAppealNo.Ltfb.,,pf2009 lan Singh Sahare S/o. Shri Johan lal Sahare, aged about 45 years OGCupation Assistant Professor (Emergency) posted at Govt. College Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 'Secretary Service Indore M.P. PubUc CominissiOn. (M.P.) fNow Seeretary CKhattisgarh^ -^s^ ^ir03. ^c^ .€r«—i ^ip^^^^^ -^V> 0s! f^9- C:0- {, ^ ^.1,.^.^^ (Public' Y : Service (Cpmmissiori, Raipur (G.G;] Upper Secretary, M.P. State, Higher Edueation,, Department, Bhopal (M'.P.) Now Upper Secretary, C.G. Stafe, ,Higher Education @e|partnieiit;K^ip^f^-©-)i ^Exafiiina.tiQn j ^©QntrQll®r,i M.P. T'.SJC;., Indore (M.P.)| T*low. ^-Examinafioi Controller, C.G. P.S.CJ (.Raipur(C.G.) ^' " ' ' .^' WRTT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 11) 0:F CHSArt'tySGAt^ fVnGS^^ X^^ BEWCH)::A<^.'.20^^;::I^^%:.Wl^.aRlBbgi;::ll5^0t];(tti^ CHHATTISGARHmGHsC^®ItTRU]l£B!Sl2()0'7. :fHEi -anBEi N '^:i;^..i^j^';'.i^ MS ^^iiSiSWW^WSiiyi IWSiSS81SliH^ !^%^^;Sia ^^ \;^M^M^?;®S§ 'DB:.^lS&le|S|KBis|ll.K' ^t^^ •'•^^^^eln^l%SliIK)ias(iceJBBIW W iiRlttIiIW Appellant ResDOndents ;WriiMD^l3No^l963^20C .;','':-'':.;:^^ Dliah Singh Sahare i versus „ :: . .•-.;: ,1.,:: .:,:-.- ^.:.Se(;retai%,:%3:^l:>.!fcg|3uE)ljeE :1^:,:' l.'?/;."/'SeNice^^%^^ lnclore'al'liEl^tBgrSB^:''l.;:[^.^ ;;^;3^1®^ WSSSSi, WKU8S 'ifsSSS a :&^ :Presenft.; -1... ' l'.:^ ...•:^'''^ Shri:R.S.Patel,coynselforthea^^lia!!rt.;^Li;^::::,.,,;,^^^ ' Shri y.S.TIiaKurwDeput^N^voesit^^neraltiloRdil^^ate/reSNnjde^ No.2.,;.!.':.:''.;'^:l^;:,-..:...'^ :^^He;apRears^r're^n(a©n1^:(:i.:1i:anGl;^3i,1:^'. ' '..t";''':...^:l''ir :sasM 1SSS i'l.'t .i;8i° t^ta^E>ealBrn:ieF;Section^1:)^Nhe^hMattisflarMi;l-ligh®©Hffi(^i3^1gsiaNgfSI ;:''w:::1:to®iviS:Jon;'BenW3^gZO@i;;rga£l5MB;MBKlS%il^ 'Chhat(isaarB^lliah:J@c(urt[l^ules.;Z®Q!7:'::^i.'^'l^1g'::i:L,(;"^ ^MMSS&feSsfS^^S.K..^tetW^ :.l:-K^^^iMi]^iiNigisSjfc^j;^5i®iA::Tii'ii. Q(E]l|giUS8MS8BIMI% 'i :.tt%!ft !!;"a^^ WfiK KS ^eraEM^uaiEl^S®.&%a';^S^^^'^ : ' : .;;^%ii:: ::1',1'^: Learngd cbyrlselappeanng^Fth^irartiesareHeanifi^ 2. Thjswritappeal has been^ledagainsfthieimpugFieaorcl^TClg^d 23-3-2009 passedby theleamedSingleJudgeinVVritPetitfe>n(S.) No. 1677/2005 dismissingthewritpetition.. 3. Brief facts o^ the case are^tiat^he wr appellant was ^rking as .0RAi.::Y^ s3MSNT .:..:'::''t'.,' Assistant Professor jn the SoGioliSgy; ©epartmentsinee 14-12-1|i87| |net on regular basis. An advertisemet^t was issyed in the year 1994^ appointment of Assistant PrefessoFS On regular te^ Pradesh PublicSewcegQmrnis^ntallliewFitappellaRtappli^jfoRthie^ said postandiappearedinthewiffl^reexami^^ion.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^,^^^^^^^^ M Ba ;»! iillBI ^ie^ SSi;;^ 4. It was the condition given in the admit card for the written examination that no candidate should put any identification mark on the answer-book. 5. It is alleged that the writ appellant mentioned his roll number in the supplementary answer-book in the last and, therefore, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission disqualified his candidature and he was not called for interview though from the mark-sheets issued it was found that the candidates having lesser marks were called for interview. 6. Being aggrieved, the writ appellant filed O.A.No.891/1995 before the State Administrative Tribunal. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, O.A.No.891/1995 was transferred to this Court. In this Court, O.A.No.891/1995" has been registered as Writ Petition (S.) No.1677/2005. 7. Learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ Petition (S.) No. 1677/2005 on the ground that in the instructions, which were issued in the admit card, it was specifically mentioned that if the candidate leaves any identification mark in the answer-book or writes his name in the answer-book or writes roll number at any other place in the answer- book except the column ear-marked fbr'the same, he would be disqualified. 8. " The writ appellant violated the said condition. 9. However, now, at this stage, learned counsel for the writ appellant submitted that the answer-book of the writ appellant should ^::.-" .:;"^. ^ •€ ''•' • r *;••*„., fe ^5'''fe,^>\ P ••'--.i-^' ; ^ ^. • •'l.^'^^' be summoned by this Couri: as the writ appellant had not written his roll number in the same. 10. After a lapse of more than 15 years, it would not be proper for this Court to summon the answer-book of the writ appellant. Moreover, when the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission has disqualified the writ appellant for violating the aforesaid condition, we see no good ground to interfere or to determine any question raised by the writ appellant. Moreover, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission was not a party here, as Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission was substituted in its place, but, at a later stage, pn 27-10-2009, under the impression that Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission would not be successor of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, name of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission was deleted from the cause-title of the memo of appeal. Anyhow, we are not inclined to interfere in the decision taken by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. 11. The writ appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopai