Sachitanand Pal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.469 of 2015

1. Sachitanand Pal, S/o Amardev Pal aged about 25 years, R/o Village Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat Civil/Revenue District Koria

2. Ashok Kumar, S/o Late Ramjeet aged about 39 years, R/o Village Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat, Civil/Revenue District Koria ---- Appellants versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Aadim Jati and Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur

2. Commissioner, Department of Aadim Jati and Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Chhattisgarh, Raipur

3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, District Koria ---- Respondents For Appellants : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgment on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 26/4/2016 1.

I.A. No.1 has been filed to condone delay of approximately 92 days in preferring this appeal. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties including the filing of Review Petition No.50 of 2015, after which the appeal has been filed, delay is condoned. 2.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 3.

The only issue is with regard to the genuineness of the appointment order dated 28.2.2009 sought to be relied upon by the Appellants to take advantage of the circular dated 7.3.2012. No doubt, the appointment order was not filed along with the writ petition and was sought to be placed in the review petition which the Learned Single Judge declined to consider.

4.

In the peculiar facts of the case, we dispose the appeal with the observation that the Respondents may consider the case of the Appellants in accordance with law under circular dated 7.3.2012 without prejudice to their rights to examine the genuineness of the appointment order sought to be relied upon by the Appellants. 5.

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed. 6.

It appears from the record that the office appears to have inadvertently placed on record Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.6 in Writ Appeal No.489 of 2015 (Ram Kumar Shriwas v. Union of India and others) as also of Respondents No.2 and 3 in the same appeal. 7.

The office is directed to correct the records forthwith as it will necessarily cause avoidable confusion with regard to representation and appearance of Respondents No.2, 3 and 6 in Writ Appeal No.489 of 2015. Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Subbu