IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFLCHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR' (C.G.) VERSUS Basant Kumar Thakur, aged 4O years, S/o Late Shri Thansingh Thakur, R/o Village Borga’han, Post Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, r Directorate of Public Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, Directorate of Pubiic Education, District Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Durg District Durg (C.G.) Shiksha Prasarak ‘ Sa’miti‘, Bhatagaon—B, District Durg (C.G.) Through: President. Rajendra Kumar Suryavanshi, S/o Neelkanth Suryavanshi, Resident of Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Tumanial Survanshi, S/o Basantsingh Suryavanshi, R/o Subhash Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ‘C/f’ New WRIT PETITION (S) No. $7F§g OF 20i1§ I H w , 1. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS , So 3/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 378 OF 2011 PETITIONER Basant Kumar Thakur _ Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL ' (Passed on this 24 day of January. 201 1) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director. Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur/ respondent No.2 by communication dated 3.1.2011 to the District Education Officer, District Durg, has wrongly rejected the approval of recommendation of the name of petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Kam'ii Grade-l, on the ground that Rajendra Kumar Suryavanshi was placed at serial No.1. Accordingly, a fresh proposal may be made. 2. On perusal of the papers, it is found that, in the proceeding dated 19.6.2010 (Annexure P-4), it was recorded that Rajendra Kumar Suryavanshi though have obtained maximum marks but not in possession of proper caste certificate and in the same time, a select list was annexed to the proceeding signed by all the officers, wherein the note with regard to caste certificate has been scored out and it is written that “Praman Patra Sahi Paye Gaye" and he was eligible. Be that as it may, the position is not clear. Accordingly, the District Education Ofticer may look into the proceedings and a list annexed therewith before making recommendation on merit. There is nothing for adjudication, as the impugned communication dated 3.1.2011 is very clear and it requires re-examination by the District Education Officer for sending the list strictly, in accordance with merit and law. 4. ln view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. ashok Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge