Shivam Sonwani v. Govt Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.2876 of 2017 • Shivam Sonwani S/o G. K. Sonwani, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Student, R/o Quarter No. 2- G, Street No. M. P. R. Zone- 1, Sector - 11, Khursipar, Bhilai, P. S. Khursipar, Chowki, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Govt Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission H. O. Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raiur (Chhattisgarh), P I N 492001

3. State Bank Of India ( S B I ), Administrative Office Building Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 492001.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Manish Nigam, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06/07/2017 Heard.

2.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to make alternative arrangement to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process on the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer. An advertisement in this regard was issued on 22-02-2017. In the advertisement, it was written that the on line application should be made in between 12 PM of 04-03-2017 till midnight 11.59 PM of 02-04-2017. Grievance of the petitioner is that on account of merger of respondents No.3-State Bank of India, on line banking services was not available from 01-04-2017 to 02-04-2017, therefore, he could not submit his candidature for the above post. Now, after about 2 & 1⁄2 months from the said date, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking alternative arrangement to permit

the petitioner to participate in the selection process of above post. 3.

On specific query being put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why on line application could not be made from 04-03-2017 to 01-04-2017, no satisfactory explanation is given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, it does not appear that the petitioner could be granted opportunity at this belated stage when entire period for submitting on line application form is already over. 4.

In the present situation, it is the applicant himself, who has to be blamed for not taking appropriate steps promptly and waited till the last moment for submission of on line application.

5.

In the result, there is no merit in this case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

SD/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Tumane