U. Ravi Patnayak v. C.G. State Industrial Deve. Corpo. Ltd. And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3292 of 2013 U.Ravi Patnayak S/o Late U.S.R. Patnayak, aged about 46 years, R/o Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.).

---Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, through the Managing Director, Head Office, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road-1, P.S. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

2. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road-1, P.S.-Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

3. Executive Director/Chairman Selection Committee, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road-1, P.S.-Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Commerce and Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.

For respondents No. 1 to 3 :

Shri Ayaz Naved, Advocate.

For State :

Shri S.P.Kale, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 03/07/2018 1.

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the notification Annexure-P/1 dated 20/09/2013 whereby the respondents had cancelled an advertisement dated 08/08/2003 published for filling up the post of Manager (MIS) with the respondent No.1.

2.

The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process and written examination was conducted on 14/09/2013. Thereafter the tabulation of the

answer sheet was also conducted and thereafter the recruitment process was not finalized. Later on, the impugned notification was published intimating that the entire recruitment process itself stands cancelled. It is this action on part of the respondents in cancelling the advertisement which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3.

Without going into the merits of the case, this Court finds it difficult to entertain the petition for the simple reason that, at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was aged around 46 and down the line pending the petition before this Court today, the petitioner may be around 51-52 years of age. Even if the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to proceed further with the recruitment process, the petitioner may not be in a position to get an employment as he has admittedly crossed all the permissible upper age limit for recruitment with the Government or with any institution under the State Government.

4.

Thus, the present Writ Petition stands rejected on this limited ground itself.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE