C/^ 1^7$"^—^ ^ ^m£ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. ^s^< /201Q PETITIONER o o^^^ ^^^y>v ^^v-" Ravikant Borker ^.- S/o.- Shri Babulal Borker, aged ^^0 about 42 years, R/o Village Mahud Machandur, Tehsil Ambagarh Chowki Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) o^•^" RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Panchayatand Rural Welfare Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) "Zila Panchayat Through :- Chief Executive Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. —-.Js&^..._._..,_.._ -HC—78 ^^T^Tf^fN^ ^T^T3?I^?T^W^ 'S'^T "Lii'Mt<^<'4,yal^<ic, [®i<'ii'H^< ^^^^JAJ..{..^.../±:.M.2-^Ji Nl^dl ^,<4jej, -"- < - ^ -^ W^T T^R7 (^rf^^T) '^fTW^f^T3^?y SB : Hon*ble Shrl Maaiadra M 9.8.2010 Shri Anup Majuindar, co Snit. Smita Ghai, Panel ] advaiice copy. Heard on adinission. jiinsel for the petitioner. Ij/awyer for fhe State/respondent No. 1 on Grievaiice of the petiticj though vide order dated 22-| 2008, fhis Court had decidedj date for fhe purposes of recko^^ given beuefit oftlie saxae. In tiie case of Snndee^ State of ChhatUsgarh Ss No.4829 of 2008 on 22-02-20 gner as set-out ia tlie petition is that R2-2010 passed in W.P.(S.)No.4829 of fhe controversy wifh regard to cut-off ^ing eUgibiiity, the petitioner is not being •itin <<!17. It has been brougIJLt fhat otlier Jaapad Paa<j ofF date has been pre^ have taken the cut-ofl basis of inodel advertist dated 03-01-2008 (Anu^ date for the purpose ofj appUed for selection oi^ would be fhe last dat^ tbnii ia fhe conceraedj the cut-ofF date nl advertiseraent can.not 1} date on fhe pround interaal circular and; ^ .tQ_the,notic^jgf_tiie_cafci ^l^?<n€Iil'HTR^f '4 'fe1^ <Fai^j< '^'^t^T^T^T ohaii Shrivastava, J. Kuinar Shri^astswa & An^ther vs. O^hcrs, passed by this Court in W.P.(Si ilO^ it has been held fhus:- At to the notice of tliis Court ^hayats have given fhe cut- |cribed, but Uie auth.orities date as 1-1-2009 on the ^ment circulated with meiao ^xure P-1). Thus, fhe cut-off Ithose caadidates who have the post of Shiksha Kai-mi for filing fhe appHcation subj'ect advertisenient, as lentioned io. the inodel |e considered^, as fhe cut-off piat firsUy; the same was ^coudly; it was not brought ca^aidates^wjio^^pursuant^^^^ .f'i<-W^\ .^: • "^A ^*:^^SMS^^ :*•; •^^w^ ^^&.—78 ~ ^H^T ^T'f^thF ^Tf l3?T^T ^RW ^ Praveen ^E[ ^i^Kn^, y>xi1<-i<i<o, (s)(r||-yy: HW^\ thNt^ "^200 ^T^I TR^7 (^qI^<»<^T) ^TTW 1Bf?^ 3ff^?r —2^ tlie advertisenient, selection on the r^sponded aiid appUed for Kanais. post ofJShiksha 18. In view of foregom| petitioners niay be and apponitoaient, ifva|( fhe notified vacaiiciesj advertisenient. The also be cousidered foi pennissible under fhe is niade clear fhat fhe| not be disturbed on imipleaded as petitious/' ife, fhe iadividual cases offhe co^isidered, for their selectiou ^a|cancies are avsdlable as per m tlie conceraed subject ca^es of the petitioners inay grant of age relaxation, if |.egal provisions. However, it appoiated caiididates shaU th^ ground fhat they were not partjy/respondents ia fhLese In view of fhe aforesaifi consider fhe case of fhe peti^c wifh regard to his eUgibility in| Learaed Counsel for tN subinitted a representation j Paachayat, Rajnandgaon, The respondent auth^: representation of fhe petitioiji( down by this Court ia the (supra), Accordiagly, fhe petitio^ 'chi^id^i'i ^TO^f ^f fe^t <r»i^i< ^^iRm^it^ order, fhe respondents are obMged to loner also aad take appropriate decision the light ofthe aforesaid order. petitioner submits that he has already to fhe Chief Executive OfHcer, Zila 3rity shall consider and decide the stdcUy ia accordance wifh law laid case of Sasideep Kumar Shrivastava LOijier is fmally disposed off. ^ ^vvas ^^»^y ,tava