Laxmi Narayan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5177 of 2020

1. Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Pardesi Aged About 31 Years R/o H.No. 200 Dabripara, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Rajesh Kumar Sahu Through Selection Committee Department Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10.12.2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner the present writ petition is the non calling of the petitioner by the respondents for verification of documents inspite of fact that the petitioner's rank is much better than the respondent No.4.

2. According to the petitioner, he had applied for the post of Lecturer (English) and in the E cadre as well as in the T cadre his rank has been at serial No.152 under the physically handicapped category and as compared, the rank of respondent No.4 in the E cadre as well as in the T cadre was at serial No.266 and 265 respectively, inspite of this the petitioner has not been called for verification of documents whereas the respondent No.4 has been called for the same.

3. Perusal of pleadings would show that the petitioner has already filed a detailed representation to the respondent N.2 and the same is still pending consideration.

-24. Given the said facts, let the respondent No.2 take a decision on the representation that the petitioner has made at the earliest preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Meanwhile, till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the respondents should not conclude the recruitment process. While deciding the representation, the respondent No.2 is expected to take note of the contention of the petitioner with regard to the ranking of respondent No.4 is concerned.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder