Rohit Kumar Gopal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4181 of 2018 Rohit Kumar Gopal S/o Shri Ramdhan Gopal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Near Maharanapratap Chauk, Ring Road No. 2, In front Of Amrit Petrol Pump, P.S. And Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Fisheries Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Fisheries Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Selection Committee, Fisheries Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate For State :

Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27/06/2018

1. The default pointed out by the Registry stands overruled.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is the non-consideration of the petitioner on the post of Fisheries Inspector.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondents had issued an advertisement on 31.03.2018 for filling up the post of Fisheries Inspector under the Fisheries Department of the State. There were 23 posts advertised, of which 4 posts were reserved for the OBC and the petitioner belongs to the OBC category.

4. According to the petitioner, he has all the requisite qualifications as has been advertised including the training and diploma in the relevant subject, but yet the authorities have not granted any marks for the said diploma certificate and the training programme that he has

undertaken in the said subject and bypassing the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have published the select list. He submits that till date the order of appointment has not been issued. He further submits that he has already made a detailed representation/objection in this regard to the respondent No.2 vide Annexure P/7 and P/8 dated 14.05.2018 and 15.06.2018, but the same have not been till date considered.

5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the certificate of the diploma, which the petitioner has, as also the certificate of the training course in the fisheries subject, this Court does not intend to keep the writ petition pending. However, ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the contentions and submissions made by the petitioner in the representations/objections (Annexure P/7 and P/8). In addition, the petitioner would also be at liberty to file a fresh representation, if he so chooses within a period of 3 days from today, which shall also be considered by the respondent No.2 before issuance of any order of appointment in favour of the selected candidates. In case, if the respondent No.2 finds the petitioner eligible, then before issuance of the order of appointment, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered according to his merit position.

6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved