Yashvant Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4116 of 2020 • Yashvant Das S/o Shree Sudhram Sonwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Panderbhatta, Post Office Kurra, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Hearlh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

2. Collector, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

3. Chief Medical Officer Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, m Advocate For State :

Mrs. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 15-10-2020

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31-5-2018 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was successfully selected for the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor. He would further submit that the petitioner, however, was not issued any appointment order and the information was obtained under Right to Information Act on 6-6-2020 whereby

it was informed that the petitioner was selected which would be evident from Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has not been issued any appointment order and no reasons have been assigned by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has moved an application before the Collector, Raipur as also before the Chief Medical Officer, Raipur by Annexure P/3 on 3-9-2020. It is further submitted that the respondents No.2 and 3 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner so that the petitioner either may be provided with appointment or reasons he may come to know for not issuance of any appointment order.

3. Considering the documents, it appears that the petitioner has been selected for the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31-5-2018 (Annexure P/1) and the last information which is received on 6-6-2020 under Right to Information Act, would show that the petitioner was selected. Consequently, it is observed that since the petitioner has already made representation on 3-9-2020 (Annexure P/3) to respondent No.2/Collector, Raipur, and respondent No.3/Chief Medical Officer, Raipur they shall consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This court has not expressed any observation on the merits of the case.

4. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju