G Hr we BYNOIIF‘C M HOP TH EXEMPrEo CHED @@’ State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Public Health Engineering, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Block Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) V ERSUS NON-APPLICANT N0. EgTITIONER J Mokshanand Jain, ‘” S/o.- Shri Prahiad Kumar Jain, Aged about 24 years, R/ o.— Village Kishanpuri, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) hri Ramkaran Sinha, S/o.- Shri Rambharos Sinha, Aged about — 23 years R/o.- Village Dhekuna, Post Junwani, Tehsil Narharpur District — Kanker N-APPLICANT NO. 2 N’BLE COURT IN WP S N 74 4(2009, MOKSHANAND JAIN VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 8a 2 OTHERS 2 0,6 2010 PASSED BY THE HO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH REVIEW PETITION .693 [2010 PPLICANTS l RESPONDENTS A O . M HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH : BILASPUR V. 7? 0f S B. . HON’BLE SI‘IRI MMINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVAgJ. ‘ Review Petition No.91/2010 Applicant] Ram Karan inha ‘ Petitioner Versus State of Chhatiisgarh , and Ors. Non-applicants[ Respondents ?I Aypearance: Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. 4. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate tbr State/ respondents No. 1 8t, 2. h, ,_ . tg Shri Vivek Chopda, counsel‘for respondent No.3. And Review Petition No.9312010 Applicants] State of Chhattisgayh and Petitioners another versuS Mokshanad Jain' nd another Non-applicants] Respondents , 2x Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. dvocate for the. State/petitioners. Shri Vivek Chopda counsel for respondent No. 1. Shn V.K. Pandey, counsel for respondent No.2. S ! n a A V ‘ “A ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 10. 10.2011) 1. By this common order, these two review petitions are being " disposed of as both, the review petitions arise out of the order dated 22.6.20 10 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.7444/Q9. .By‘ the order datedz;\r,22.6.2010, writpetition iiled by writ” petitioner- Mokshanand Jain was allowed. It was held that Ramkaran Sinha (petitioner in Rev.” Pet. lNa91/10‘ and ‘ respondent No.3 in‘the writ petition) was not qualified "as-he did I» not possess minimum eligibility criteiia for appointment tothe epost of Block ’Coordinator. Accordingly, selectionr and appointment of Ramkaran Sinha was declared illegal and set aside'with further ‘djrection'to consider the matter relating to appointment of Block Coordinator in accordance with the criteria laid down in the minutes of meeting dated 24.8.2009 (filed as Annexure 'R—I along with reply in the writ petition). It was also directed to consider the [matter with regard to appointment of the candidate, who is found most suitable according to the criteria laid down; ' 3. In the review petition, which has been filed by the State, it has been stated that after the order was passed by this Court, it was found that an important aspect of the matter namely 1 l amendment of the qualification for appointment'r on the post ” ‘ could not be brought to the notice , of the Court. Learned . ' l l, l l 1 counsel for the State Govt. submitted that the adverti$ement which was originally issued, wherein minimum qua1i1'1catjon for appointment of Block Coordinator was preseribed as Graduate, was subsequently amended before last date of submission of form and in the amended advertisement which was published qualification was changed mm in the neWSpaper, minimum Graduation to 12m pass Within 55% from any recognized Board or any examinationgequivalent to the same. It is, therefore; submitted that on the basis of the amended qualification; review petitioner -Ramkaran Sinha was duly qualified for being *V appointed and, therefore, the order declaring that his appointment was illegal is liable to be re—called and reviewed. petitioner —Ramkaran Sinha has . Learned counsel for the review also submitted that in view of the fact which is now being disclosed by the State before the Court in review petition, it is clear that the writ petition was allowed by taking into consideration l the minimum I eligibility, qualification as prescribed in the orig‘nal advertisement and the fact that the minimum qualification was subsequentlyuamended, was not brought to the notice of theCourt and, therefore, in the interest of justice the order passed by this Court earlier may heire— called and reviewed. . The review petitioner —Ramkaran Sinha who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition, was dully served with the notice, but no appearance was made nor any reply was tiled. Order dated 22.6.2010 clearly records that no representation is made on behalf of reapondent No.3 though served. It is not the ase of the review petitioner— Ramkaran Sinha that he was not served or for other justiiiable reason, he failed to appear before this Court and me his reply. As far as the ground of review ‘ taken by the State is concerned, all that has been said is that after the order was passed by the Court, the same was examined and it Was found that at the time of final arguments, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the minimum qualification has been amended by the Department/Appointmg Authority. It is not the case of the State that such a fact was speciflcally stated on amdavit in their reply which was ignored from consideration. . The grounds which have been raised in the two review petitions do not make out a case of any error apparent on the thee of record. None of the respondents either by way of reply on‘ afiidavit or even during the course of submissions, raised any such ground with regard to the amendment of the Qualification. V‘ In both the review petitions, there is no g‘ound raised, much y less canvassed during the course of arguments before this w Court that in spite of due diligence and promptitude, the fact regarding amendment of qualification could not be brought to the notice of this Court. at the time of filing reply or at the time i of hearing. Therefore, I am not inclined to review the order i passed by this Court earlier. v i i f { . F r . r x c (5W 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner -Ramkaran Sinha further submitted that the eeect of the order of the Court is that the appointment of the review petitioner-‘Ramkaran Sinha has been declared illegal and he apprehends that the State Govt. may proceed‘to recover salary which has already been paid to him for the period which he worked. 8. Taking into consideration the overall circnm stance of the case and that the order came to be passed by this Court on 22.6.20 10 and further considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and the reply med by the State, it is directed that if review petitioner-Ramkaran Sinha has worked, no recovery shall be made from him. g 9. With the aforesaid observations, both the review petitions are finally disposed of. SdL Manindra i ‘lehan Shrivastava Judge , r, .. min WWW.“ .W . a