Deepika Prakash v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.2735 of 2014 Deepika Prakash D/o Shri Prem Prakash Aged About 30 Years R/o Tankapara Ward No. 13, Opposite Veslian School, Rajnandgaon Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Village Development Department, Mantralaya Raipur C.G.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, ( C.E.O.) Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/07/2016 Heard.

2.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on the basis of selection held in the year 2009. 3.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the competitive examination 20082009 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, a letter dated 24-06-2009 was received by the petitioner informing that name of the petitioner has been included in the provisional merit list and she is required to appear with original documents for verification. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner presented the relevant documents on 03-07-2009 and was hopeful that she would be getting an order of appointment. Thereafter, no orders were passed. In the year 2013, the petitioner started making various representation but no relief has been granted.

Hence, this petition has been filed.

4.

After going through the pleadings on record, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the ground of delay and laches. According to the petitioner, selection was carried out in the year 2008-2009. The petitioner was called with original documents for verification in the month of July, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner did not do any thing for almost four years. The petitioner then started making various representation before various authorities in the year 2013 only. The documents placed on record would show that even the records of selection and merit list of year 2009 were longer exist as they all have been destroyed. 5.

In view of above, at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner because the petitioner has remained indolent.

6.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane