← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/774/2018dismissed

Girdhari Lal Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-03-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 774 of 2018 Girdhari Lal Verma S/o Shri Punit Ram Verma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Near Gole Chowk, Behind Dena Bank, Opposite Reliance Tower, Rohinipuram D. D. Nagar Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Secretary Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Interview Committee, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Assistant Public Information Officer, Departement Of Law And Legal Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5. Smt. Suchitra Bardhan, Advocate And Public Notary, Resident Of Rajendra Nagar, Ravi Gram Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Practising Place At District And Sessions Court Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21/03/18 1.

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner questioning the select list dated 17.07.2015 for one post of Notary at Tahsil and District Raipur.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that from the select list respondent No. 5 has been selected and appointed on the post

of Notary, whereas petitioner secured more marks and possesses more qualification than respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the selection list is unsustainable and bad in law.

2.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the state would submit that petitioner was given information about the selection list under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 24.09.2015 and the petition suffers from delay and laches as the writ petition questioning the selection and appointment has been made on 13.03.2018 therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

4.

The impugned selection list was notified and prepared on 17.07.2015 and thereafter the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Notary has been made and the said information was supplied to the petitioner on 24.09.2015 and the writ petition has been filed on 19.03.2018. 5.

Since the petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and there is no explanation for three years delay in Paragraph - 7 of the petition in filing the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka