Dr. Sunil Kumar Tandon v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5080 of 2018 Dr. Sunil Kumar Tandon S/o Shri Daulal Tandon Aged About 31 Years R/o 305/I, Risali Sector, Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Ayurved Yog Evam Praakritik Chikitsa Unani Siddha Evam Homeopathy (Ayush), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Tehsildar, Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Ravina Mehra D/o Shri K. P. Mehra R/o Village Parsada, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate For PSC :

Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/08/2018

1. The sole grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 both had applied for the post of Ayurved Medical Officer/Physician and the respondent No.5 has been given appointment showing him to be a schedule caste category candidate.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 is very well known to the petitioner and he has also certain documents available with him, which would establish that the respondent No.5 does not belong to the reserved category.

3. Be that as it may, this Court in exercise if its power under Article 226 would not substitute itself as an inquiry commission or conduct a

roving inquiry threadbare going into the caste status of the respondent No.5. Since the respondent No.5 has till date not been granted an appointment by the respondents as is averred in the petition, ends of justice would meet if the writ petition itself is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to ensure that before issuance of the appointment orders the authenticity of the documents filed, is duly verified.

4. Needless to mention that the disposal of this writ petition should not come in the way of issuance of appointment orders to other selected candidates.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved