^l^ COTJRT OF CHHA' WNI Fcution (S) No. 3631 uf2007 ^ETJQNERS : 1. Chandrabhan Jayaswal, S/o B_amjeevan Jayaswal, aged about 31 years KJO Shyani Sadan, Tahsil Takhatpiir, District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Vipin Yogi, S/'o Vishwanath Yogi, R/o A-23, Priyadarshini Nagar, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Brajkishore Sahu, S/o BaUram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Kapil Nagar, New Saricanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS ffi.SK^NDENTS : 1. State of Chliattisgarh, Tlirougli its Secretary, Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Matitralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Conmrissioner, Land Records, Raipur, P-aipiir (CG). 3. Coilector, Bilaspur District Biiaspur (CG). {WRFT PETmON IINDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. SatfaSi K. Agiiiiiotai, J.) 'resent : Shri VivekKumat-ShrivaKtava, Ailvocateforthepetitioners. Shri Alok BaSdishi, Govt Auvocate for the State/respondents. QRALOJRBE.R 17 ofMai-ch, 2008) 1. With the coiisent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 2. The petitioners, by this petitioii, filed under Ajiicle 226 ofthe Constitution of India, seek relief that fhe respondeat airthorities be directed to send the petitioners for Patwari training. 3. The facts in nutshel! are that the petitioners along with others caiididates made applications fbr sele^^tion on tlic ^o?t of Patwarl, punsuant to the advcftiseineiit Dubiished in the month of MarcWADfiL 2005. After appeariiig in the exammation fbr selection, the petitioners found their names in the wait !ist at seria! No. 39, 63 and 72 respectively aloag with other caiididates, in General Category. 4. L.eamed counsel appearing for the petitioners fiirther submits that the respondeiit authorities, ignoring claim of the petitioners, liave seiit the candidates who were junior in the se'ect list from waitine list No. 42 to 62. '^ from 65 to 70 and 73 to 83 for trainiag. The petitioners are at seriai 110. 39, 63 and 72 respectively. List is as under: Sl. No. Category RoBNo. Name Fa.ther s Naine Maiks Selectio" category/ wait list Qver all wait list 84 OBC 24206 Chandrabhan Jayaswal Ramieevan 65.3 GEN-39 67 S5 i GEN 20919 Manoi Kumar Sharma Deendayai 65.2 GEN-40 68 86 GEN. 20865 Suman Pandey Ajay Narayan 65.1 GEN-41 69 89 GEN 20308 Atu! Kumar Gupa D.N. Giipta 65.0 GEN-44 72 90 OBC 20289 P-amegh Kumar Patel Sasjuram 65.0 GEN-45- 73 w GEN~ 20675 Mukesh Kumar Pandey Nijanand 64.6 GEN-47 75 96 OBC- 24028 R-amesh Kumar K<iushik S.R. Kaushik I 64.6 GEN-50 178 99 GEN i 20240^ 1 Harishehandra Jasn Girishchandra 64.4 GEN-53 81 100 OBC | 24349 Ramsharan Sahu B.R. Sahii 64.3 GEN-54 82 103 OBC 24522 DeepaSs Kumar Sahu 7Gh.mL.il 64.2 GEN-56 84 i04 ("S-'M 24501 Parmeshwar Frasad Radheshvam 64.2 GEM-57 85 105 GEN 1 20753^ Saunan Ahmed Khan Jamal .i^hmed 64.! GEN-58 86 '7 06 I GEN' 20519" Kapil Kinnar Singh V.P. Singh 64.1 GEN-39 87 110 I GEN- 20027 Ashish Soai Purshottam 64.0 GEN-62 91 111 IOBC- 24519 Vipin Yogi Vishvanath 64,0 GEN-63 92 114- GEN ! 21043 4- Sa-vesh Trivedi Trivedi 63.S GEN-65 94 115 GEN i 20906 Abid Mohammad I Mohammad Kliadiin 63.8 GEN-66 95 I !6 i GEN 1 20093 Anifudh Kumar Patanwar Leldiram 63.8 GEN-67 96 120 GEN 20510 i Ashwani Kumar ! Yadav Ramsharan Yadav 63.8 GEN-70 100 12.2 i OBC ^J27| Brajkishor Sahu B.R. Sahu i 63.4 GEN-72 102 123 I GHN~ J_ 20630 Mukssh Kumar randey LaiAsalal j 63.3' i QEN-73 103 127 GEN 24722 BuiflieshwarI I'.feifaura. I 63.3 JPrasad [ GEN-T? 107 129 OBC 24066 I ^-lanish Kumai' j Tamboli Vi"od ICuin^y 63.3 GEN-79 109 130 I GEN' 4- 20732" Praveen Kumar Rajput Vijay Kumar 6i2' GEN-SO" no" 131 GEN 20265 Pmkaj Tiwari Nai'endra Kamar 63.2 GEN-81 111 133 GEN 20088 Satyadev Shanna Yoeeshwar Prasad 63.2 GEN-83 113 \^ ?. Shri Vivek Kumar Sht'ivastava, lesmed eouiisel appearing for the petitioners would coiitend that it is a clear case of arbitrariness, discrimination and violatioa of provisions of Article 14 aiid 16 of the Congtitiition of Tndia. Thus, the respondent authorities bc directed to send the petitioners also for Patwari trammg 6. Per contra, Shri AJok Bakhshi, Gci-vt. Advocate, appeariag for the State/respondents would submit that no usefiil purpose would be served if the p^titloners are sent for traitiiiig. On the qiiestion of seiidiiig jmiior persons for tr?ining, Shri Bakh^hi has no ^ubinissions^ as it is an admittcd Dosifiott as it arioears from the s^lcct iist flled bv the resoondcnt authofities.. that persoiis belo^v in thp "^ait list.^ hav'e beesi seiit for the saoie. 7. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, penised the pleadmgs and documeats appendad thereto, it is wel! established that tfie persons dovm below in the wait list, ignoring the elami ofthe petitioners, have been sent for Pativari trainuig. Tliere may or may not be any consequential benefit, but the petitioners, being placed at serial No. 39, 63 and 72 respectively, when the other persons placed below the petitioners have been sent for trayiing, are eiititled to the saiue relicf. !t apoears to be a case of arbitrafiftess and <*iscriiiiii'«atioiL ?.nd thus- violative of orovisions of edualit^/ 3-s Dr^scTibed under thc nrovisions of Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitiitioii ofIndia. 8. In the liglit of afbrenientioned, the petitioa is allowed. The respondeat authorities are directed to send the petitioners for Patwari traimng innnediately. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge | Sahtt