← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1255/2016allowed

Triptee Sonwani v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-09-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.1255 of 2016 • Triptee Sonwani D/o Shri Kumar Sonwani, Aged About 24 Years R/o Quarter No. I1, Pt Ravishankar Shukla, University Premises, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, New Raipur, Mahandi Bhawan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Engineer In Chief, Department Of Public Works, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Secretary, Department Of General Administration, New Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri P. K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent :

Shri Manish Nigam, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 21/09/2017 Heard.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that under the same recruitment process, the petitioner and many other persons, who were selected and appointed, were terminated from certain allegations of irregularity in the process of selection, which was subjected to judicial scrutiny by this Court in Writ Appeal No.484 of 2015 and batch of appeals, wherein enmass termination on the alleged irregularity has been found to be illegal and directions have been issued for reinstatement of the writ appellants in those cases. It is submitted that the petitioner was also a selected candidate in the same process of recruitment, which was subject matter of consideration in the writ appeals. Therefore, it is prayed that similar benefit may be granted to the petitioner. 3.

Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid submission

that the petitioner was in any manner different than the case of those Steno Typist, who had filed Writ Appeals (W.A. No.484 of 2015 and batch of appeals), in which, orders were passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18-02-2016. 4.

Therefore, in these circumstances, this petition is also deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Impugned termination order is hereby set aside and the petitioner be reinstated forthwith in terms of order dated 18-02-2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, as stated above.

SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane