S!fF-B : S ![S{ HIOH COURTOP CHBATnSGyUBI. BILAM»Xm W.P.ISI Ho. S196/2007 PBTITIONBR K RESPOMDBMTS Rajesh Kumar Naidu, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late 'Shri B.L. Naidu, Occupation -Assistant Ehcaftsnaaa worldng at Offfce of Executivc Engineer, PubUc Works Departincat, DavKion No.3 , Raipiir (C.G.), R/o Qrt. No. H-10, Behmd Gfa-ls Polytechnic, Pcnsion Baxla Dfetrict Raipur (C.G.) Vcrsas 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Thiot^hifs Secreteiy, Departmcnt of Public Works Dcpartment, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Ei^meer-In-CIue^ Publfc Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Aausuchit JanajaU Pramar Patea Uchha Bsatarfya Chlianbm Samiti, Through.lts President, Paadit Ravi ShaakM- Shukla VMhwawidyala Parisar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chliattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jaaajati Ayog, Through its Presidcnt, 61, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Petttiea Under Artiete 226 ofthe ConaUtuUoa of Indi*. Appearance: Shri Vinay PewSsy, Counsel for fhe pctitioaer. Shri Yashwaat Siagh, Govfc Advocate for the State/rcspondeats No. 1 & 2 on advaace copy. ORAI< ORDER (11.09.2007) SUML KUMAR 8INHA. J. Heard. The petitioner is worldag on the post of Assistaat Drafisiiiau, Office of the Executwe Eagmeer, PubUc Works Departmcnt, Division No.3 , Raipiu- (C.Cr.). He received a cominunication (Annexure P/3) finiu Chha.ttisgcah Rcgya Anusuchit Jcamgccti Ayog (re^ioiident No.4) that a inatter has been TCgistered before the Ayog on fhe aUegation that the petitioner holds a false caste certificate and aa en.qttny is ta be conducted by the Coiamissioxt, fherefore, he should appear before ,-s W.P.(S) N0.5196/20)7 the Coiumtesion on 07.11.2005 aad for fhe time beii^, further proinotion ofthe petitioner should be stayed. Learacd couasel for fhe pctitloner subnafts fhat fhe petitioner has appeared bcfore fhc Commission and he has produced aB his testimoiuals before it, but the Conmtission is not taknig fiiial decision ia fhe inatter of fhe petitioner and fhe matter is still pcnding befoie the Coaainission. Lastly, a notrce dated 3/5/2007 was reccived by the petitioner for appeanng on 10/5/2007. The petittoncr appeared on fhe said date, but no decision was taken on that date also aad the matter is stiB pendiag without giving any fiurflicr date. He sutoarits fhat ia the nieanwtule, DPC has to be conyened aad as per ineino dated 19/10/2005, departiaent is not goiag to consider fhe case of fhe petitioner as the afbresaid enquuy is peadiug before fhe Coiumission. In l^ht of aB this, learued couusel for the petitioner niakes a limited prayer that for fhe time beiug, tfae' petition inay be finaUy disposed of wifh a direction to the Ctommission to condudc the enqiiity within fhe stfpulated period granted by ttus Court so that fhe niatter pendiug before fhe Conunission inay come to aa cnd aad the right of fhe petitioner to bc considered for prtMnotion to ttic next h^her post inay not be jeopardized. This Uinited praycr Baade by leamed counsel for the petittoner te uot opposed by teamed counsel for fhe State. The prayer is aUowed. Thls petition ia finally disposed of with a directum fhat if fhe inatter pertanung to the enquiiy agaiust the pctitioaer referred to in Annexure P/3 aad P/ 5 is stiU pending before fhe Coauaassk>n, fhc Coimnission shall finalty dlspose of fhe said eiiquny as eaity as possible prefexably within a period of3 inonths firoin fhe date offiUug of certified copy of this order alongwith copy of ttus Writ Pctition before fhe Conunission. Wifh the aforesaid observations, the petitioa stands finalfy disposed of. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna