^.^- 'S <»-D-" @ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS1 No. \\0^ /2010 PETITIONERS ^«^/ F\ o."' ^^y fw7^ t??^ RESPQNDENTS '< 1. Hemkumar Choudhary, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Choudhary, age- 27 year,R/o- Village- Padigaon,P.S.- Pussore,Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) / 2. Vinod Kumar Snehi, S/o Shoukilal Snehi, age- 24 year,R/o- Tah. Lailunga, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Naresh chand Barik,S/o Jagdish Barik, age- 26 year, R/o Tah.- Pussore, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ir' State of Chhattisgarh through-the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. -^Chief executive officer, District Panchayat Raigarh,(C.G.) 3.' Collector, Raigarh,Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Director, National Rural Employment guarantee Raipur (C.G.) WRrrPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION QF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS/ DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ^»^ y^ •%> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1109 of2010 PETITIONER : Hemkumar Choudhary & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Amit Shanna, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17th day of March, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on clause 7 of the advertisement dated 01.01.2010 (Annexure P/l) which provides that the employees who have been appointed earlier on contract basis, may be considered for contract appointment again, submits that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment on contract basis as they were already appointed on contract on the post ofData Entry Operator. Shri Sharma further submits that the rules with regard to reservation are not being followed in the selection process. 2. Reliance of the petitioner on clause 7 of the advertisement is misconceived as the said clause is not mandatory and it depends on several factors like confidential report and perfomiance of the employee. On the basis of facts and documents made available here, it cannot be held that there is any discrimination or arbitrariness. So far as reservation for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes is concemed, the fmal result has not yet been declared and the select list has not yet been published. 3. Shri Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, 2 and 4, submits that the State/respondents are strictly following the reservation policy and no instance has been made out wherein there is diversion frpm the reservation policy. 4. Be that as it may, it is expected and it is mandatory that the respondent authorities while making selection pursuant to the advertisement, shall follow the rules for reservation in SC/ST/OBC categories. The petitioners have failed to establish any case to entitle them to any relief. 5. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation and direction. 1 g^. 1 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge