@ Maansav Kashyap S/o Mani asap aqe about 30 years !rlo.‘Vlage hond: mt Lk ! gda B, Chhatsrh, P! 4 223. Versus 1. hhitisar roes'sonalxnation Boar, troh k aneller, hai is fce a C— 18, gore aa, Rap (httisgarh). §ia ncay, Bsta, ouh its hie Executive Officer, Basar, Distric Bastar (Cisgarh). and Pnchayt, st, troug it hi vEecute Officer, Bastar‘ Distric sta k Khy d , il B é . amer. Tehsi Jaipur, District astar tiga N 49 Cagh PfiEami d hug s Ctr vng t o§i t 2. J Pahat ar thrg Cf t t hhatt Jpa aa Baar hh s Cef xiv t Bar i (Chhaisr. ‘ (Writ Peti nder rticie 26 of Constitution of idia) S Hon’bie r. Sat . Agnihot! . iton u A 2 n B: M ish K ri J Present: V. Mr PK Bhadun Adocate v fotne r peone titir M grawa S dvoc h S A t tat Pass n i 1‘“ day o Fbruar o) ‘ {ed o ths 7 r ey, zos eed cous aearg t etition ums e petitnr Larn nei ppin for he per sbit that th ioe h n eed couneli apinte th S Kar G as bee dni sng for pomnt on e post‘of hiksha mi rade iz§ o h t een s hc ii,mainly n te ground tha in the results he has b shown a Pysiaiiy nded d se t pi a Haicapp (PH). Learne couni further submits tha the etitoner hs apped for theost of Sisha ai Grade ili und Scheduled Tribe li —p hk Krm er eg t f Physrcay Hdic Ev i h t catory, no under class o il anapped (PH) en n is admi ad heed ribe n pysrCaly dicapp cr he has been shown as Scdui T ot hi haned Anst cou of ciass, none wten. l th final rest, he as shown a gai lmn Is rit n e ui w s physicaily handicapped, thus, on that count, he was denied counseiin for g appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade lll. ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Bl ASPUR Writ PetitionJS) No $855 of 2308 Petiiioner ‘ Respondents 6 Ta‘ Ngr iu! Cha ttgah) i r H B Ai r Aate Wit Mr C K ahu dvocate for r g he Se ORAL ORDER 2) E Mr. HB. Agrawai! learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate appearing on beha!f of the respondent No.1, who has conducted the exaqnination, submits that the petitioner is not a handicapped person, there may l Chhl‘attisgarh Professional Examination Board and/or Shubh lnfotech is resp‘onsibie for any inadvertent error that may have crept in the resuits being pubiished in the internet. Thus, mentioning of Physicaiiy Handicapped is an error i be some error as is ciearly mentioned in disciaimer in the Annexure P/4 and it is i andgthe petitioner comes under Scheduied Tribe category! not under class of Physically Handicapped. Learned counsel further submits that if the Scheduled Tribe candidate having lesser marks has been considered in counseiing for appointment, the respondent Board and other respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with iaw. 3) f in view of the fact that mentioning of Physicaliy Handicapped (Pi-l) was on l account of some error and in fact the petitioner ought to have been considered undpr Scheduied Tribe category, the respondent authorities shalt take apptopriate steps, in accordance with, iaw. 4) i in View of the foregoing and direction, this petition is disposed of. Co sequently, i.A.No.1 aiso stands disposed of. 1, l Judge e i l i i ‘ Satish K. Sdl Agnim‘r‘i ‘