Sandeep Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 36 OF 2019

1. Sandeep Verma S/o Devdutt Verma, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Jataghara, Post Barhapur, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of CoOperative, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog Shanker Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh Raipur, Block- B, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Directorate Treasury, Account And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-1, 1st Floor Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Finance Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri H.B. Agrawal, senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents-State : Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08.01.2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the State Service Examination 2016 and his name stood reflected in the waiting list at serial No. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a disabled person and also falls in the OBC Category. According to the petitioner, a similarly placed person namely Kamlesh Patel who was found selected and his name reflected in the select list did not join the service and in his place the respondent authorities ought to have considered the petitioner granting appointment to the

petitioner taking into consideration the disability aspect and the fact that the petitioner also belongs to the OBC Category. According to the petitioner he has made two representations i.e. Annexure - P/6 and P/9 to the authorities in the Department but no decisions have been taken by the authorities till date.

2. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, let case of the petitioner be considered by the respondents No. 1 and 2 who in turn shall scrutinize the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case if the petitioner is found eligible in accordance with the rules and against the quota to which he has applied then appropriate orders shall also be passed in this regard.

3. This shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondents No. 1 and 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed off.

5. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Priyanka