Guru Charan Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 7055 of 2017 • Guru Charan Patel S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Dhanagar, Tahsil Raigarh, Police Station Kotraroad, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Additional Director General Of Police ( A. D. G. P. ), Chhattisgarh Armed Force ( C A F ) Police Headquarters ( P H Q ), Near Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Commandant, 6th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force ( C A F ), Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. A. S. Kachhawaha, Additional A. G.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 13/12/2017 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent to consider petitioner's case for absorption as Armourer on the submission that the petitioner has undergone and acquired Arms training. He would submit that in the past, the Department has absorbed many constables as Armourer on the ground that they have acquired Arms training from recognized institution.

2.

Learned State counsel submits that if in the past such practice was undertaken and absorptions were made, the petitioner's claim would also be considered by the respondent and decision in accordance with the law shall be taken.

3.

In view of the submissions made, this petition at this stage is disposed off with direction for consideration of petitioner's claim for absorption as Armourer on the ground that he has obtained Arms training from recognized institution. While taking decision, the respondent may consider whether the practice was prevalent in the Department and similar absorptions were made for the post of Armourer. The respondent should take decision in 3 months.

4.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit