1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 175 of 2022
Arun Kumar Pathak S/o Late Ramesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 47
Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Post Sadhwani Distt Gourela-Pendra-
Marwahi (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of
Generaladministration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur
(C.G.)
2. The Chief Secretary State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
3. Bhola Singh Shri Sheshnath Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o
Shivnandan Nagar Sector-1, Wrs Colony, Thana-Khamtarai, Distt.-
Raipur (C.G.)
4. Ranjit Pratap Singh Shri Virendra Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o-
Indira Nagar, Zone-1, Thana-Purana Bhilai, Distt.-Durg (C.G.)
5. Pushpendra Tiwari Shri Hemdatet Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o
Sundar Nagar, Thana-Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Distt.-Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Pathak, Petitioner in person.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice 01.12.2022 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pathak, petitioner in person.
2. This review petition is filed seeking review of judgment dated 2 19.09.2022 passed in WPC 2072 of 2014, which was decided along with WPC No. 591 of 2012 and batch.
3. Essentially, by the aforesaid judgment, reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates up to 58% was held to be unconstitutional.
4. The reliefs prayed for in the review petition read as follows:
"3.1 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to provide me, the Petitioner a Second Class Post under the State Government with effect from the date of the first batch of recruitment after the 58% reservation system. 3.2 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to entitle to give the Mains Exams on behalf of those exams specially CGPSC State Administrative Service 2013 and 2014 which I the Petitioner have been deprived due to excessive and unconstitutional reservation of 58%. 3.3 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to A writ/ writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to declare all the recruitment null and void from the date of first recruitment and arrange all the recruitment process again.
3.4 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to provide the compensation not less than one core Indian rupee that 3 career has been totally demolished of the petitioner by the Government.
3.5 Any other relief or moulding of the relief which Hon'ble the High Court find appropriate for the petitioner."
5. In the review application, it is stated that because of long delay in disposal of the case, the petitioner had suffered prejudice.
6. On due consideration, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for review and accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem