Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.1883 of 2016 Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, aged 45 years, Assistant Professor (Commerce), Holy Cross Women's College, Ambikapur, R/o Opposite of Atithi Lodge, Near Jaistambh Chowk, Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Ambikapur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2. Public Service Commission, Through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.)
3. University Grants Commission, Through the Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, India ---- Respondents For Petitioner:
Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 / State: - Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.3:
Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate.
AND Writ Petition (S) No.4378 of 2017 Abhay Kumar Kapre, S/o Late Purushottam Kapre, aged about 44 years, R/o Vardhaman Nagar, Mamta Nagar Road, Near Ganesh Mandir, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Controller of Exams, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.)
4. Ajay Kumar Raja, aged about 40 years, through Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
5. Rajnish Yadav, aged about 26 years, through Chhattisgarh Public
Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:
Mr. Mateen Siddiqui and Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocates.
For Respondent No.1 / State: - Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondents No.2 and 3: - Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 23/01/2018
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made applications Annexures P-10 and P-11 in W.P.(S)No.1883/2016 and representation Annexure P-19 in W.P.(S)No.4378/2017 for relaxation of age, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S)No.5201/2014 (Dr. Mrs. Bhawna Nigam and others v. The Union of India and others), decided on 27-8-2015, but same have not been considered and decided.
3. Be that as it may, it is directed to consider and decide the representation / applications of the petitioners Annexures P-10, P-11 and P-19, as mentioned above, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioners may file additional representation. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
4. Interim orders will remain in force till the disposal of the petitioners' representations.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petitions stand finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma