Laxman Prasad Sidar And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4664 of 2011

1. Laxman Prasad Sidar S/o Shri Tilak Ram Sidar, aged about 38 years, Residence of village Mitthumuda Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

2. Anil Kumar Sidar S/o Shri Madhusudan Sidar, aged about 33 years, Residence of village Mitthumuda, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

3. Ku. Khema Bai D/o Mayadhar Bhoi, aged about 25 years, Residence of village Badehardi Tahsil Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

4. Block Education Officer, Block Pussore District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

6. Tahsildar Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/12/2015 1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2.

The Petitioners were selected for appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade III. On 8.10.2010, they were directed to submit caste certificate issued by the competent authority on or before 10.11.2010. When it was not submitted, appointment was denied. The writ petition was filed belatedly on 11.8.2011. 3.

It is the contention of the Petitioners that they came to this Court earlier in Writ Petition (S) No. 4912 of 2010 which was disposed with liberty to file

representation without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Petitioners filed representation on 13.9.2010. There is nothing in the representation to demonstrate that the Petitioners submitted the necessary caste certificate from the competent authority within the time prescribed. 4.

In the facts of the case, the Petitioners having failed to furnish the necessary caste certificate from the competent authority within the time prescribed by 10.11.2010, coupled with the fact that the representation also did not claim to do so and the fact that the fresh writ petition was then filed belatedly on 11.8.2011, the Court is not persuaded to grant any relief for appointment. 5.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (Navin Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Subbu