IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR W.P.No.^^-^l of 2000 PETITIONER: Shri Jitendra Kumar Patel, S/o Yatram Patel, ,aged 27 years, R/o. Kotra Road, Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. Versus RESPONDENTS: ^ ' ^ 2- r 3. ^ 5, ^ 6. 7. Additional Collector, Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. The Nagar PancUayat Dharamjagarh, Through: its Chief Municipal Ofificer at Post Qffice Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh, MadhyajPradersh. Sfari A.N. Bhakt, Councillor, Nagar Panchayat Dharamjagarii, District Raigaili, MadhyajPradesh. Shri Govind Ram Rathia, Councillor, Nagar Panchayat Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. Dn Khurshid. iKhan, Councillor, Nagar PancKa^af Dharamjagarh, District Raigarh, Madbya Pradesh. Ku. Meera Penkra, Councillor, Nagar Panchayat Dharanyagarh, District Raigarh, MadhyaJPradesh. | Smt. Asha Sahuj, Councillor, Nagar Panehayat Dharamjagarhj, District Raigarh, MadhyaiPradesh. WRFT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226/2^7 QFTHE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF IAPPR&^RIATE WMT 1 :~'I" T XI-HC-22 ~S^ ^1<<IM<1, '^Til^(<o, fa^I^y ^n^T Tra^ W.P':'No. 3721/2000 "^ 200 WR^TWHT^ "'••'••-•••©^T- 'ST^T^FT f^ii<^ STT^T ^^i^ ^f^a' ^^;'^-< •<3 •^: ^ \ -3T[^?I'^<n^,TT^T 26/6/2001 Heard Shri Prashant the petitioner^ Shrl Ranvir nOol/State o tearned Go^o for th to fj.ie reply^Replyhas Ke noe 2^ Shri Prashant. Mishn statenenfc made by respondent| constitution- in th^t :^^^^^..of ^ele6tion of Physics inasmuch as on th] were availableo It is sfcat^ Urdu^ experts'were not avail| that there is no reasonable order dafced 12/10/1999 (Ex.E^ by which the entire selectj.cj In para 3 of the rj n0o2^among other things, it petitioner .is concerned^ he Grade I PhysicSo For the s^ were no irregularities in S^ fuily submltted that es far t^i^f<n41Ti ^i^<riT ^ f^S ^psi^K ^^Tf^R^Tf^T . Ml shra ^ learn ed coun sel for Singh^ learned G,X, for respondent |e State prays for further time | |em . filed on behalf of respondent ia ; submlts that in view of the n0o2 that there was no-illegall.ty Committee as jregards thesubject i e fixed da^fce jsubject experts d that only i|n resoect of subj ect ablCo Shri Nishra further submi|ts ground for isjsuing the-impugned /l) by the Xdditional Collector n process wasj ^s^. cancelledo eply fited onl behalf of respondent is stated that "aa far as the I" • • ~- : • . .'. ^ \ ^as a candidafce for Shiksha Karmi, lection of ttee petitioner there lectlon Commltteeo It is respect- as Expert - of;Urdu subject was l[tr^ $n^^ I.','. 3Ti^T^T R^jch ^ri^r st)*iich 'yfi^i 3B^r'q3W(^^^) '3H^T i^TW ^lt^ . concerned, as siibmi ted non-availabilji.ty of subj Yusuf Chhaya was treated who is well with the 1 If 1s also furtD followss and during -the tion was taken ing the const:it Committeeo Hert petitioner was ^Plfepft;T ^l^<riTl^rs<^l<M^i< ^3ti^<3TY^ ^bove ±n the ^bsencebf ••i \ sct Exper-fc of Urdu, ^hr" i |a s a Expert of Urdu subj ect 9 of- Urdu". lan^uage liert stated In para 4 as "It is also su]j>mi!tted that wtien the S el ection Comm.ittjee was constC'£uted illegality in 4he select-i°n of the petitioner.", 4f rfes r|os Subject exper-fc was Shri M.S. Pa^ar^ In the statutory^Rule^ the Author i fcy o Respondent s who had made some comolaj|] On 28/2/2001 this Court the said respondentSo Itj the facts and circumstandes wrlt petitioner^ and fch'at fcney cannofc tak^ selection process of tae respond^nts injt ervl^ew no obj eo- by any candtdate r egard- :u€ion of Selecti cn ce selectlon of the iegal o Therej °was no ^^ ^hysilcs In the present case i the present case in terms of 1 ipondent no^2 is the appointing i .o 3 to. 7 ^.re ^i'fcea^^to be' .persons nt before the |respondent n0o la *M Haa dir^cted islsuance of SPC to ; il is contended Itha-fc: Infact j^— - i iiL^ , j ' • ' ;' ' • .' i •' ;.:'. :^:..;y '.4)n^./..;';''^ particularly a^. regardS.^he1';^ :^-.::-'^ noso 3: to 7 are strarhgers^:'-- any valid grievance against ^^ |writ petitioneto i:!IS; - :iii- Upon careful per4sal of the averments of the writ; petAt ioner and a Iso respondent nOol an<3 aftexl |the Impugned order i ssued by hearing ^hdi Prashant Mishra GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. .o3 llfill T XI-HC-22 ^a? ^j^l^^, '^ftWT^, [^^1^^< 3ffiOT 'q^^ /^ Wff^T^TRraT' '"'"""""""""""""^"^^ 200 '^"^T' ^n^T^Fr 'i^rii<=h 3?T^T 9b^i^ ^if^a raju ^^.^" yv .s? 'STT^T ^RfT^R'Hf^TT learned counsel for th-e pet. learned G,Ac for the Sfate 4 •behalf of-respondent n0o2 a; view thafc there cannot be^n^ selection .of.the ^rit petit as subject expert was avail^bl impu^ned . In the result^ this pe^ the direction that the 12/10/1999 in so far as it is quashed inasmuch as ther' selection of.the ^rrit petit. C.C.today. chj^?<rt4t<1 'HTR^f "^ fe^ <R51<^K ^ 3Tf^FT 3TI^T tioners Shri ^anv±r Singha nd a I so retur n fi 1 ed oa stated above^ I am of the hindrance as regards the oner in Phystcs subject inasmuch e at the time of iselectlon. tition is disDosed of with order (Ex.P/1) dated <j:oncerns t.he aubject, of Physlcs^ ^ is no infirmity -in the loneto Sd/- Chief Justice [Tjt^^fe^