Miss Madhu Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2242 of 2018 Miss Madhu Tiwari D/o D/o Shri Sunil Tiwari Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Adawal, Near Gyanodaya School, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar, Chhattisgarh. ----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (CG).
2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through The Controller, Board Of Secondary Education Campus, Pensionabada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar. ---- Respondents Writ Petition (S) No.2248 of 2018 Miss Nirmal Kaur Ahuja D/o Shri Guru Charan Ahuja Aged About 25 Years R/o Pratapganj Para Ward No. 11 , In Front Of Bothra Jwellers Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (CG).
2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through The Controller, Board Of Secondary Education Campus, Pensionabada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate.
For respondent-State :
Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 13.03.2018.
1. These are two petitions which have been filed seeking a direction to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Panchyat), Commerce and Lecturer (Panchyat) English respectively.
2. The contention of the petitioners are that they had participated in the selection process for the respective posts and they stood third and first position respectively in the merit list of selected candidates but the respondents, for reasons best known, have not considered their cases for appointment. It is also alleged that the candidates who were much below in the rank of merit and of the same category to which the petitioners belong and the same subject, have been granted appointment order.
3. In the given set of facts, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending calling for reply etc. rather the interest of justice would be served if the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to look into the matter and to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent No.3 and 4. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to make available the certified copy of this order to respondent No. 3 and 4.
4. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case but have only disposed of the petitions on the ground that the persons who were lower in rank in the merit list have been considered ignoring the claim of the petitioners. This aspect shall be kept in mind by the concerned respondents while deciding the case of the petitioners.
5. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (P.Sam Koshy) Judge inder