Nandlal Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1923 of 2019

1. Nandlal Rathore Shri Balram Rathore Aged About 26 Years R/o Gatoura District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Raj Kishore Sahu S/o Shri Bakde Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Chatidih, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Ashish Ray S/o Shri Satish Ray Aged About 27 Years R/o Janji (Sipat), District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Kaushlesh Kaushik S/o Shri Brijmohan Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Seppat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

5. Narayan Prasad S/o Shri Shankarlal Vastrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o Gataura District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarters, Sector 19 Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Superintendent Of Police District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Assistant Inspector General (Selection), District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate along with Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/03/2019

1. The limited prayer, which the petitioners have sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondent No.2 to proceed further with the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement published in December, 2017.

-22. Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners had participated in the said recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD) and the written examination was conducted on 30.09.2018. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were subjected to physical examination prior to the written examination itself, however after 30.09.2018, no further development has taken place in respect of the said recruitment.

3. Given the said facts, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be serve in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to take a prompt decision on the claim of the petitioners, for which they have already made the couple of representations to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is expected to take a decision in the case of the petitioners, unless otherwise the department has taken a decision to drop the entire recruitment process itself for some specific reasons.

4. Let this decision be taken by the respondent No.2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved