Govind Prasad Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3306 of 2021 Govind Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 32 Years, R/o Devi Chowk Shivni, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, CGPSC, State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Director, Indian Institute Of Handloom Technology, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. The Senior Manager, Raymond Limited, Textile Division B- 1, A.K.V.N. Kailash Nagar, Sausar, Chhindwada, 480106, Madhya Pradesh.

5. Smt. Shraddha Dwiwedi W/o Shri Prakash Dubey D/o Shri Purshottam Dwiwedi, Aged About 31 Years, Presently Working As Lecturer Weaving, Posted At Indian Institute Of Handloom Technology Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06.07.2021

1. The limited grievance that the petitioner seems to have is the manner in which the respondent no.5 has been granted or the respondent no.5 has obtained employment under the respondent no.1 on the post of Lecture

Weaving.

2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent no.5 has obtained employment on the basis of fake and fabricated experience certificate and on the basis of which the appointment order was issued in her favour. According to the petitioner, he had applied for the said post and was also meritorious and was placed at serial no.1 in the waiting list and had the respondent no.5 not been selected, it was the petitioner who would have been selected.

3. The limited relief that the petitioner at this juncture seeks is that since the petitioner has made a complaint to the respondent no.1 in respect of the manner in which the respondent no.5 has obtained employment on the basis of the alleged false and fabricated documents, let the respondent no.3 take an appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with the rules governing the field.

4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition, at this juncture with the limited grievance that the petitioner has, can be disposed of directing the respondent no.3 to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field, on the complaint that the petitioner has made and after due consideration of the same, let an appropriate decision be taken. Any decision which the respondents would take should always be after providing due opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.5.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai