Heerelal vs District And Sessions Judge
2022 Latest Caselaw 2092 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (S) No. 2034 of 2022

     Heerelal S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Working As
     Assistant Grade 3 At Civil Court Pathalgaon, District Jashpur
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

  1. District And Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

  2. District And Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 01.04.2022

1. The issue involved in the present writ petition is the order passed

from the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Jashpur dated

19.01.2022. Vide the said order the request for issuance of NOC for

participating in the selection procession for the post of Stenographer

Hindi in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Raipur

has been refused/rejected.

2. An identical nature of writ petition had already come up for hearing

before this High Court in WPS No. 294/2022. There has been an

elaborate decision rendered in this regard and the non-granting of

NOC by the employer has been held to be in violation of the

fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

of India.

3. Given the said fact, this Court is of the firm view that the present writ

petition also would be governed by the principles of law laid down

vide the said judgment dated 14.02.2022 in WPS 294/2022 in the

case of Jai Narayan Verma Vs. District & Session Judge, Kabirdham.

4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant

writ petition also deserves to be and is accordingly allowed in similar

terms as has been held in WPS No. 294/2022 dated 14.02.2022. The

impugned order dated 19.01.2022 passed from the office of

respondent no.1 accordingly stands set aside/quashed. The

respondent no.1 is directed to consider and issue NOC to the

petitioner forthwith.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai