Arun Kumar Pathak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7205 Chatt

                                    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

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

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