State Of Chhattisgarh v. Prakash Tiwari

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 333 of 2020

1. State of Chhattisgarh; Through the Secretary, Government of C.G., Department of Home (Police), Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police; Police Headquarters, Block No.4, Sector - 19, Near Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Additional Director General of Police (Recruitment/Selection); Police Headquarters, Block No. 4, Sector - 19, Near Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

4. Deputy Director General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, Block No. 4, Sector - 19, Near Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Prakash Tiwari, S/o Shri Raghunandan Tiwari, aged about 29 years, R/o Ward No. 5, Gudipara Dhooma, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Nandlal Rathore, S/o Shri Balram Rathore, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Gataura, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. Vijay Narayan Banjara, S/o Shri Vidyachand Banjara, aged about 28 years, R/o 281, Sichai Colony, Darri, Jamnipali, Ward No. 35, Darri, District Korba (C.G.)

4. Ashish Ray, S/o Shri Satish Ray, aged about 27 years, R/o Janji (Sipat), District Bilaspur (C.G.)

5. Ramji, S/o Shri Nandlal, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Kheda, Tehsil Nawagarh, Kheda, District Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners/State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents :

None.

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 30.06.2020 1.

Interference declined by the learned Single Judge with regard to the challenge raised against Annexure P/1 was interdicted by this Court as per judgment dated 24.02.2020 and the written test in respect of selection of the post of

Police Constable was upheld, however, making it clear that the Respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the 'Physical efficiency test' under the 5 different categories (100 mtrs. race, 800 mtrs. race, shot put, high jump and long jump carrying 20 marks each) in respect of the 48,761 candidates mentioned therein. The process was directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months. The present MCC has been filed by the State seeking for extension of time; pointing out that because of the adverse consequences resulted in view of the COVID-19 situation, the proceedings could not be finalized with appropriate pace. 2.

Heard Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the State/Petitioners.

3.

On going through the limited extended period sought for, we do not find it necessary to issue notice to the Respondents as no prejudice would be caused to them. The extension of time is sought for in the particular circumstances as pointed out by the Petitioners. Further, issuance of notice to the Respondents compelling to appear before this Court during this period of pandemic may unnecessarily cause an additional burden upon them; which is not necessary. 4.

In the said circumstances, considering the particular facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to grant the extension of time. The period for completing the of process is extended by a further period of '3 months'. The Registry is required to send a copy of this order to the learned counsel who was representing the writ Petitioners/Appellants for information. 5.

The MCC stands allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan