Rohit Kumar Deshpande v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3103 of 2015
1. Rohit Kumar Deshpande S/o. Late Shri R. K. Deshpande, Aged About 41 Years R/o. 27, Ashoka Park Colony, Dharampura- 1, Jagdalpur Kripasindhu Dansena, Civil And Revenue Dist. Bastar At Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh).
2. Satish Mishra, S/o S.R. Mishra, Aged About 39 Years R/o Mohan Nagar, Behind Sun City, Jagdalpur Civil And Revenue District Bastar At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
2. Commissioner, Land Record, State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Commissioner, Raipur, Division, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Collector, Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue Distt- Bastar At Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondent s And W.P.(S) No.3125 of 2015
1. Rahul Kumar Singh S/o T. B. Singh, Aged About 44 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 09, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
2. Kamla Prasad Yadav, S/o Suraj Lal Yadav, Aged About 45 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 30, Revenue Inspection Circle Pilkha, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Vijayshankar Singh, Aged About 44 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 03, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
4. Vishwanath Tiwari, S/o Late Ramnaresh Tiwari, Aged About 48 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 20, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
5. Ashok Kumar Shukla, S/o Late K. K. Shukla, Aged About 50 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 08, Tahsil Ambikapur-1, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
6. Satyendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Rangnath Mishra, Aged About 46 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 27, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
7. Ravindra Prasad Pathak, S/o Ramlakhan Pathak, Aged About 47 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
8. Aftab Ahmed, S/o Late Abdul Hameed, Aged About 48 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 15, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
9. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, S/o Rampratap Singh, Aged About 39 Years Working On The Post Of Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 20, Tahsil Ambikapur- 1, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue & Desauster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Commissioner ( Land Records), Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. The Collector Surguja, ( Land Records), Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Collector Surajpur, ( Land Records), District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)
5. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Its Controller, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners Mr. Pushar Sinha and Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocates For Respondent /State Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G.
S.B.:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 26/8/2015
Heard.
(2) The petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the impugned advertisement - Annexure P/1, by which, the State Government has advertised 75 posts of Revenue Inspectors to be filled up by direct recruitment.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that under the Chhattigarh Land Records Class-III Non-Gazetted (Executive and Technical) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014., only 25% of posts of Revenue Inspectors are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 75% posts are to be filled up by promotion from Patwari (70%) and Tracer (5%). The petitioners are working as Patwari and have put in about 20 years of service, therefore, direct recruitment would encroach the promotion quota.
(4) There is nothing in the record to demonstrate as to how many posts of Revenue Inspectors are presently occupied by direct recruits so as to conclude that the present advertisement would exceed the quota prescribed for direct recruitment. In the absence of relevant facts and figures, the writ petitions are vague and not maintainable. (5) Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to prefer a better petition providing all necessary facts and figures.
Sd /- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna