(. 33 XN THE HON'BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR W.P. (sl31S)/2011 PETITIONER: ^ ^••^•y" ...-• ,<^v' _. ^'y..^" ^ ^•-" RBSPONDENTS:- ^MA^ f^> " ^'^ •(S.N. K^lcJ, ^. ^7/. s^»n^ Khomlal Dewangan S/0 ShriSukulRam Aged About 30 Years R/0 Village and post^ Parpodi Tahsil^uja) Dist Durg (C.G.) vw^.^^SS^^s^'^^ S^] ^ VERSUS ^ (1) 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department ofLaw, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) High Court of Chhattisgarh, through, Registrar General Chhattisgarh High Court High Court Campus Bodri Dist - Bilaspur (C.G.) i^^ r^) WRTT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t\V fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 3180/2011 : Khomlal Dewangan Versus : State of Chhattisgarh and another Appearance: Shri Atul Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govemment Advocate for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondentNo.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF ENDIA ORAL ORDER (24.06.2011) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties the petition is heard finally. (2) In this petition under article 226 ofthe Constitution of India the petitioner, who is a reserved category candidate has challenged action of concemed respondent and consequent issuance of list of ineligible candidates, wherein he has been declared ineligible for appearing in the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Preliminary Examination, 2011 to be held on 26/06/2011. (3) Admittedly, the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on account of non-submission of caste certificate along with his application. (4) According to the petitioner, on a proper reading ofthe contents ^of advertisement submission of caste certificate at the stage of x ^iyvQ \^ K preliminary examination was not required, Ifaerefore rejection of his candidature is illegal. (5) On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent would argue that fhe terms ofadvertisement together with the instructions to candidates cleariy provide that when some kind ofrelaxation in fee or otherwise is claimed, submission ofcertificate was necessary. (6) This court has already dealt with this issue in Writ Petition (S) No. 3084/2011 (LaUt Jangde Vs. ffigh Court of Chhattisgarh) wherein it has been held by this court that in the absence of submission of caste certificate by a reserved category candidate, the candidature was rightly rejected. (7) The order passed in the case of Lalit Jangde (supra) shall govem the instant petition also. (8) Accordingly, th[s writ petition is dismissed. (9) A copy ofthe order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 3084/2011 be kept in the record ofthis file. ' Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge c^-