Smt. Pushpa Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 341 of 2019 Smt. Pushpa Sahu W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Baijna, Post Office, Goindri, Police Station And Tahsil, Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Office Of Collectorate Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer Office Of Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

4. Rupesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Vijay Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Baijna, Post Office, Goindri, Police Station And Tahsil, Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner :

Mr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Salim Kazi, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/01/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the selection process for the appointment for the post of Rojgar Sahayak in the Village, Baijna, Tahsil, Patharia, District, Mungeli. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was also found eligible for the selection to the post of Rajgar Sahayak, along with other candidates. Respondents No. 4 meanwhile had raised an objection before the Sub Divisional Officer in respect of the domicile of the petitioner. SDO had thereafter ordered the Tahsildar to conduct the enquiry and submitted the report.

2. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for a direction to the respondents for declaring the petitioner to be qualified for the post of Rojgar Sahayak.

3. This court in the light of the aforesaid factual matrix is of the view that the present writ petition in the given facts is premature. The final orders are yet to be passed by the SDO based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar. The final

order also if it is passed by the SDO would be an order which would be appeable under the provisions of the rules governing the field. 4.The writ petition at this juncture invoking its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 would not be justified in substituting it is as appellate body on the issue.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the competent authority in the event if the order if passed is against the petitioner.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Rohit JUDGE