^:". >.;::';^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ^-'^SS^OF 2005 PETITIONER: yS^ ^w\^^^" ^e^ Ku. Kaushilya Mannewar, D/o'- Shri Laxmi Prasad Mannewar, Aged About-20 Years, R/o-Bhairav Nagar, Mathepurena Raipur (C.G.) «^\. ^' •^ VERSUS RESPONDENT (S): 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh: Through it?s Secretary ^ Department Of Health, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Health Services D.K.8. Raipur (C.G.) Dean, Chhattisgarh Aayurvriggyan J Sansthhan, Distt-Bilaspur (C.G.) / 4. Adim Jati Uchha Estariya Chhanbin Samiti, Through: it's President, Pt. Ravi Shankar Viswavidiyalaya Parisar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE. XI-HC-78 \dw| <-qi«lc)<4,U>-al^<l<?, Roi^y\ --_ \^y^n *<A '^V-^^o ^~~- TPTcCT 3FTTT^"*/w'v''""'"" ^">N*'^v''"*l""" 3Tf^?T^S^Si (yii^q<g) 38 31T^^T<I?TRylJ<b ^1T3n^$T^bHJ<h BTdT^R ^Tftn OT^^T 28-8-2005 Shri Vinay Pandey, counse| cpl<ifcO<Ttv1 +1MC5T^'I^l^l ^FJI^-CI^ ^ari^rsn^sT for the petjtioner; Shri Sandeep Dubey, Gc|vt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Manindra Shrivastavfr, Sr. Advocate wlth Shri AmrSto Das, Advocate for respondent No.3. The petitioner has preferre|d this writ petition chattenging the action of respondents for denying admjssion to the petitioner in the 1st yoar of M.B.B.S. Course sn the academid petitioner is not a S.T. candidate. The case of the petitione| session 2005-06 on the ground that ttie r is that after completion of her Senior Secondary Examination (10+2), ^he appeared in the P.M.T. Examination Test. 2005 held by the responder|ts and she secured flood numbers which is evident from Annexure-P/2 njiark sheet. The petitioner applied for admission as a S.T. candidate o^ the strength bf ttie certificate given by the S.D.0., Saraipali (Annexure-R/5) but the respondente are not giving admission to the petitioner on th4 ground that she does not belong to the S.T. category whereas, certificate |has been given by the S.D.O., Saraipali. Return has been filed on been mentioned that some compl status of the potitioner was fi^ constituted for the purpose of enc| in view of the Hon'ble Apex Cou|1's judgment passed 'm Madhuri Patil's case. The High Power Committ^e after conducting the enquiry vide letter No.1174 dated 16-9-2005 inforifiecj the answering respondente that the caste certificate benefrt of whic()i is being sought by the pd:itioner was >ehalf of respondent No.3 in which It has laint regarding genuineness of the caste &d before the HSgh Power Committee uiring and ascertaining caste of a person ;i-T" XI.HC-78 MTyq'nqiqiOO, y>-al<<1< , Rlrtl^^ 39 *ii*i<^ia»'n^ 3H^5T q^^ ((jcli^^^) ^200 37T^^T^TR-ti<b ^TTW^^T^Hra? ^?TTWr^rflpf 3TT^$T nigniy suspiaous, communication on the date of 2005, vide letter No.1192 res respondent that the petitioner w< certfflcate issued to her. Onthi not entitled for admission agains| j have heard Jearned c^ records. It is true that certificate the petitioner showing her as a| Power Committee constituted _enquiring and_ascertaining the in^idates enquired into the jnformed the Dean, C.I.M.S. tht category, therefore, she is no| reserved for S.T. Pemsal ofthe aforesaid examined the tegality of the and also examined Nrujatiya| Traditionai Occupation, and tfi^ with the S.T. Community. In petitioner herein and her fath^r status as S.T. and also they w( establjshes that they are S.T. In view of the above certificate issued by the S.D.O., (PI^Fo^^+IMol'^'l^^l ^^•^l^ ^3rf^TW^?T and th6 p^tltloner was appifoyt.t abuul Uiy said -^ (he counsellng. Subsequentty, on 23-9- ^pondent No.4 informed the answering |is wrongjy tryjng to teke advantege ofthe ^, the petittoner was informed that she is ItheS.T.quota. )unsel for the parties and perused the Ahnexure-P/5 has been issued in favour of |S.T., however, on a complaint, the High i|nder the Supreme Court's directions for Senuineness of the caste of the S.T./S.C. hatter and vjde letter dated 23-9-2005 at the petitioner does not fall in the S.T. ©ntittedto teke advantage of the seat [;ommunication shows tiiat the Committee c^rtlficate issued in favour of the petitjoner particulars, namely Gotra, Language, hepr Gods and Goddess, which do not talty lpara-2 it has been mentioned that the were not able to establish about the»r »re not abteto produce any record which firtding of the High Power Committee, the paraipali, carries no value. XI-HC-78 S}W| -qiqi04|, yTT|^^<i, Rlc^I^y< 40 H[H^\ a?m^ 3TT^^T<PTR^icb ^?TT3n^$T?^Tra? Ban/e ^ ^ oX 00 3TT^5T q^q? ((icli^61<ri) W^ 200 BT?ITWr^?f3TT^^T -3- rec4>rd sartie t.earned counsel Tor tne said report has been gjven wit^iout petitioner for producing the hearing,therefore, above reporti S am afraid, this argume|it petitioner has any grievance ags is at liberty to challenge the the document dated 23-9-2005 existence the petitioner cannot Jn view of the above, 1 anl petitioner is without any merrt,] accordingly dismjssed. Nocost^. Consequently, M.(W.)P. stand disposed of. Fletitioner put forwara me argument inai the giving reasonabte opportunity to the and without giving any opportunity of ^annot be relied upon. cannot be altowed to be raised. If the tinst the said report ofthe Committee, she before ttie appropriate Forum. So bng jssued by the High Power Committee is in any benefit as a S.T. candidate. of the opinion that ttie petition filed by the Isame is llable to be dismissed and it is claim <p<<ifo<nr( ^i+ic^T^' f^^cl <Rri^K ^3ri^T3H^?T No.3828/2005 and I.A. No.8438/2005 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge