Smt. Priya Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7267 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                  Order Sheet
                           W.P.(S). No. 8664 of 2022
                     Smt. Priya Agrawal Vs. State of C.G.




03/12/2022          Mr. T.K. Jha, counsel for petitioner.

                    Mr. Vaibhav Singh, P.L. for State-respondents.

Heard.

Issue notice to respondents.

Mr. Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondents, hence, process fee is not required to paid.

He prays and is granted two weeks time to file reply.

Also heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application submitted by petitioner for appointment to the post of President, District Consumer Commission is rejected on the ground that petitioner is not having 7 years continuous practice on the date of issuance of advertisement and further mentioning that based on the decision in W.P.(S) No. 42/2022 dated 01.02.2022 also petitioner is not eligible. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application form of petitioner is rejected on the ground of age also, which is to be considered in light of the provisions for appointment of President of Consumer Commission, wherein it is mentioned that applicant should have qualification of District Judge, therefore, the reason assigned for declaring the petitioner to be ineligible is contrary to the provisions of appointment itself. He submits that as the interview is being held today, petitioner may also be permitted to participate in the interview pending consideration of writ petition on merits.

Learned State counsel opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the decision of writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 42 of 2022 with respect to applicant having 7 years continuous practice on the date of advertisement is challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.126 of 2022 and the Division Bench also upheld the judgment of writ Court passed in W.P.(S) No.42 of 2022, petitioner at present is member of District Consumer Commission, Raipur, hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of any interim relief.

In the aforementioned facts of the case and also the decision in W.P.(S) No. 42 of 2022 as also Writ Appeal No. 126 of 2022, I do not find present to be a fit case where petitioner is entitled for grant of interim relief.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1, application for grant of interim relief is rejected.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

balram