Pawan Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1829 of 2017 • Pawan Singh Thakur S/o Kanahaya Singh Thakur, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Pacheda, Post Office Dhurkot, Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Sainik Welfare Chhattisgarh, Kachehari Complex, Behind Home Guard Office, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Shivraj Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 20/04/2017

1. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to permit him to participate in the interview for the post of Welfare Organizer for which applications were invited by the Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Chhattisgarh.

2. It is put forth that pursuant to the notice inviting applications issued on 23.12.2016 (Annexure-P/1) the petitioner submitted his candidature on 27.12.2016, however, he did not receive call letter or admit card for appearance in the interview. Therefore, he moved a representation (Annexure-P/5) but the same was not considered by the respondents.

3. This Court had directed the State Counsel to seek instructions from the respondents on which learned State Counsel would submit, on instructions, that the petitioner never submitted his application raising his candidature for the subject post, therefore, admit card or call letter has not been issued to him. It is also submitted by the State Counsel that the authorities had enquired from Shri D.K. Shukla, Clerk at the Bilaspur Office as to whether the petitioner had deposited or served any application on 27.12.2016 on which the said Clerk denies to have received any such application.

4. The petitioner's application filed as (Annexure-P/5) does not bear any receipt of any Officer or Clerk of the Bilaspur Office of District Sainik Welfare, Chhattisgarh. The document nowhere refers that the application was presented before the Bilaspur Office.

5. In view of the categorical submission made by the State Counsel, on instructions, from the concerned officer of the Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Chhattisgarh that the petitioner did not submit any application for the subject post, no case for issuance of any direction to the respondents is made out.

6. The Writ Petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve