Dilip Ratre, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 206 of 2021

1. Dilip Ratre, S/o Lal Ji Ratre, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Pahanda, Police Station - Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh - 495674.

2. Jawahar Kurre, S/o Late Shri Ren Say Kurre, Aged About 38 Years, BALCO District Korba Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Department of Home, (Police) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent of Police, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Appellants : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice & Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 31/08/2021 Per Prashant Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice Proceedings through Video Conferencing.

1. In the process of recruitment on the post of constable which happened in the year 2008, large scale irregularities were found consequent upon which the recruiting agency cancelled the entire selection process on 09.09.2008. This order was stayed by Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur on 10.09.2008. However, subsequently the Inspector General of Police examined the matter and forwarded the report to the DGP in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Karyapalik Bal Aarakshak (Bharit Tetha Sewa ki Sharte) Niyam, 2007 (hereinafter called as

'Rules of 2007'). The DGP accepted the report by order dated 10.06.2009 and approved the order of cancellation of selection process. In the meanwhile, fresh recruitment process for the same posts commenced on 04.06.2009.

2. Apart from the fact that the selection process which was cancelled on account of allegation of large scale irregularities and the subsequent fresh recruitment having already completed, the other reason why we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge is that the petitioner has already participated in the subsequent selection process and having failed therein is now agitating the old petition.

3. No case for interference is called for in the case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Rajani Dubey) Acting Chief Justice Judge R/-