Umed Lal Jaiswal v. C.G.Public Service Commission And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3771 of 2006 Umed Lal Jaisawal S/o Chainuram Jaisawal, aged about 42 years, Occupation Block Education Officer (Suspended) R/o Village and Post Ramhepur (N) Tahsil Lormi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. C.G. Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of General Administration, DK S Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Hemand Upadhyay S/o Y.C.Upadhyay, aged about 42 years, Occupation Deputy Director, Education, Public Instruction, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. R.Bambra W/o G.S.Bambra, aged about 56 years, Occupation DEO, Raipur.

5. Gendram Chandrakar S/o Arjun Lal, aged about 47 years, Occupation Deputy Director, E/Joint Director.

6. Rajendra Prasad Yadu S/o Heera Lal Yadav, aged about 43 years, Occupation Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Rajnandgaon (Dongargarh) District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1/CGPSC : Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2/State : Shri Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General and Shri Faiz Kazi, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 4 : Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 5 : Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/02/2019 1.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

2.

List of the candidates otherwise qualified for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, School Education, came to be issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short 'the CGPSC') in terms of the directions made

on adjudication in a batch of writ petitions, one of them being Writ Petition (S) No. 599 of 2005, decided on 16.11.2005.

3.

On the basis of the said decision and direction of the writ Court, the CGPSC re-issued the list of eligible persons who were to be appointed and have been appointed and they have been working as such for more than a decade and a half.

4.

Merely because the Petitioner chose to file the present writ application alleging things as to the award of marks etc. to the selected candidates, the same is not required to be entertained because the option available to him was to assail the order of the learned Single Judge at whose directions the fresh list of Deputy Directors were notified by the CGPSC with only one rectification since nothing adverse was found in the previous list as such and they have been holding the post since then. 5.

The writ application therefore is dismissed being devoid of merit. Any indulgence would amount to review of the earlier order of a coordinate Bench, if not re-adjudication.

Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit