Rajendra Prasad Suman v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5469 of 2019 Rajendra Prasad Suman S/o Shri Khikhram Suman, Aged About 32 Years, By Profession Advocate, R/o Mannu Chowk Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Public Service Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :

Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 29/07/2019 1.

The present petition has been filed seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents 1 & 2 for issuance of appointment order of the petitioner for the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (hereinafter referred as "ADPO") in the Home Department.

2.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of ADPO. The name of the petitioner appeared in general waiting list at serial no.13 and in the Scheduled Caste waiting list at serial no.1. It is further informed

-2that the petitioner was subjected to document verification and he had undergone medical examination on 02.03.2019 and the report of the medical certificate was submitted before the authorities on 07.03.2019. However, no order has been passed with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in respect of the identically placed persons for the unreserved category, the Department has already issued respective order of appointment and the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category wherein still the vacancy exists. 3.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents 1 & 2 shall take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner so far as the appointment to the post of ADPO is concerned. The decision may be taken within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Khatai