Mohammad Riyazul Ameen Memon v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.S. NO. 5929 OF 2018 Mohammad Riyazul Ameen Memon, S/o Shri Alhaj M. Rafique Memon, aged- 28 years, R/o HIG-1/56, Housing Board Colony, near New Collectorate, Neem Path, P.O. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa ... Petitioner versus 1.
State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, General Administration Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (CG) 2.
Chairman, C.G. Environment Conservation Board, Room No. 5/11, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (CG) 3.
Member Secretary, C.G. Environment Conservation Board, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent 1 :
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.
For Respondents 2 & 3 :
Mr. Kishore Bhaduri and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/09/2018 1.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the alleged action on the part of the respondents in returning the application form which the petitioner had sent by courier for filling up of the post of Assistant Law Officer under the respondents.
2.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had sent his application by courier and the same was duly received by the respondents and thereafter they have returned it back without any endorsement. He has relied upon the seal of the respondents upon which the whitener has been applied, as is evident from the original envelope enclosed along with the writ petition, Annexure P-4. 3.
Without entering into that area of dispute as to whether it has been properly received by the respondents or not, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not applied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Clause 4 of the said advertisement clearly stipulates that the petitioner was supposed to move an application by registered post or by speed post. There was no other third option made available. In the absence
of availing the said option if the petitioner has taken the risk of sending an application by the third mode which has been rejected, the same cannot be said to be in any manner bad in law.
4.
The writ petition thus being devoid of merits the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge