Jayant Kosariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 3657 OF 2018

1. Jayant Kosariya S/o Shri Janak Kosariya, Aged About 29 Years R/o F-1/203, Govt. Complex, Sector 17, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chairman Selection Committee, Through The Collector, Office Of The Collector, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Shri Gajendra Kumar Markam, 203 K, Nadipara, Post Orcha, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 494661. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26.06.2018 1.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the selection of the respondent No.4 for training for the post of Patwari from Narayanpur District.

2.

The solitary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 was technically ineligible for being considered for the said training as he did not have a live registration certificate from the concerned employment exchange on the date when his credentials were being scrutinized and the petitioner did have the said certificate and therefore the petitioner should have been considered instead of respondent No.4.

3.

The said contention of the petitioner may not be sustainable any further in the light of the Full Bench decision of this High Court in the

case of State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. Roshni Sahu (Writ Appeal No.411 of 2014, decided on 21.10.2016) and other connected petitions whereby it has been held that requirement of live registration certificate from the employment exchange can never be a mandatory condition for recruitment. Apart from the said objection which has been raised by the petitioner, the petitioner fairly submits that the respondent No.4 was placed above the petitioner in the order of merit.

4.

Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the Full Bench decision of this High Court, the objection raised by the petitioner is not sustainable any further and the petition thus being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder