P3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILA5PUR W CORAM: Hon'ble Shri $.R.Nayak, Chief JusTice & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. PETETIONER = Gomkh Nai'h. Verma, son af 5hri D.R.Verma, aged abouT 32 years, R/o Gumpar, Block Pghri, Dis*t Raipur (MP) Versus RESPONDENTS : 1. Sfafe of Mudhya Pmdesh Through Secrefar'y, Panchnya‘r and Socia! Welfare Depurfmem Bhopu‘ (MP) 2. Chief Execufive Officer, Zila Panchaya‘f Raipuf (MP) Smt Renu Kochar, Counsel for The pef'rrioner. ' oRAL ORDER (Passed on 26.4.2006) The foHowing om! orHer of The Cour? wa5 passed by 5. R. Nayak, C. J. The petitioner apphed for fhe posf of Shiksha Kormi Class-II (Biology) He was nof selected for 'rhe posf Hence fhis wri‘r pe‘Hfion Is f1led ques‘homng his non—selec‘hon 'to the posf of Shiksha Karnu The pefmoner has also challenged fhe queshomng The vahdufy of sub- clause (b) clause (1) of sub—rule (9) of Rule 5 of M P Panchayaf Shlksha Karmis (Bhar‘ri Ta‘l’ha Seva Ki Sharfe) Niyom, 1997 (for shor'l’ ‘Niyo‘m 1997') AT fhis s'l'age ifself if needsfo be noficed fhaf the provision assailed is a repealed Rule and The impugned Rule was subsfrrufed by amendment mode Vlde noflficahon No F-20-95 XXII P 2 da'l’ed 13* April, 1998 by 1'he Sin-re Governmenf in exerCise of fhe powers conferred on if by sub-secfion (1) of Secl'ion 95 read with Section (2) -2.— r Shri Utkorsh Verma, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. -2- of Section 53 and sub—section (1) of Secfisn 70 of The Modhya Pmdesh Panchayaf Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Therefore. the challenge 1’0 repealed Rule does no? survive for decision-making. The omendmen'f was broughf abouf even on The dafe when ‘rhe wrif peTi'rion was presemed in fhe High Courf of Madhya Pmdesh. 2. The only confenfion urged in The wri'l pefifion and rei‘i'era'fed by the learned counsel for fhe peii-l'ioner is Thu? fhe pe‘fi‘rioner is having B.5c. MA. and B.Ed. Degree and he belongs 1‘0 OBC cafegory. The pefifioner is given only 11 marks in fhe in'rerview and fhe niarks given in The inferview is io-rally unreasonable, arbi‘rrary and very much on lower side, and if he were 1'0 be given marks in inierview on par wi'rh fhe marks awarded 1’0 1he o1her candida1es, he would have raised up1o a rank which would have resulfed in his selecfion 1'0 The p051 of Shiksha Karmi. The pe1i'rioner himself in paragraph 5.4 has disclosed 1ha1 in 1he OBC cafegory, 1he Ias1' candida1e selecfed for 1he pos‘r of Shiksha Karmi had secured aggrega1'e of 54.83 marks whereas 1he aggrega're marks secured by The peTiTioner is only 44.48 marks. The CourT cannoT go inTo assessmenT of The peTiTioner made by The selecTion commiTTee in The inTerview, parTicularly, in The absence of plea of any ma/a fide. IT is noT The case of The peTiTioner ThaT persons consTiTuTing The selecTion commiTTee for some collaTeral or exTraneous consideraTions or vindicTively awarded less marks Than whaT The peTiTioher deserved in The inTerview. Therefore, we do noT find any ‘ineriT in The above conTenTion advanced on behalf of The peTiTioner. No oTher poinTs are urged before This CourT To assail non- selecTion of The peTiTioner To The posT of Shiksha Karmi. 3. The wriT peTiTion fails and iT is accordingly dismissed. No cosTs. i Sdl i i ’ Sdl- , i Diiip Raosahei; Deshmukh chief Ju§£i9i Judge ,7»: " \ \ ll 1 L _. _wi 43' i