Bharati Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 388 Chatt

                                     1

                (Proceedings through video conferencing)
                                                                   NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      Writ Appeal No. 37 of 2022


1.   Bharati Rajak, D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Rajak, Aged About 33

     Years, R/o H. No. B-28, Kanchanjunga, Phase 2, Rohinipuram

     Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)


2.   Rajkumari Markam, D/o Shri N.S. Sidar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o

     Block 2, Yamuna Vihar, NTPC, Jamnipali, Korba, Dist.- Korba

     (C.G.)


3.   Poornima Thakur, D/o C.L. Thakur, Aged About 29 Years R/o Block

     No.- 61/D 2-D Type, Nirmala Sector, Ward No. 23, Dalli Rajhara,

     Distt.- Balod (C.G.)


4.   Pooja Sonkar, D/o Shri Chinta Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o

     Village and Post- Medesara, Tah.- Dhamdha, Dist.- Durg (C.G.)


5.   Hiramati Sahu, D/o Shri Jeevan Lal Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, R/

     o Ward No.5, Boys High School Road, Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara

     (C.G.)


6.   Omeshwari, D/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Tekam, Aged About 28

     Years, R/o Block No. 50B, Rajhara, Dallirajhara, Distt.- Balod

     (C.G.)


7.   Jyoti Yadav, D/o Sahdev Singh Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o

     Q.No. E/17, Subhash Block, SECL Colony, Korba (C.G.)


                                                           ---- Appellants
                                      2

                                   Versus


1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department of Higher

     Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Tahsil and

     District- Raipur (C.G.)


2.   Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through- Its Secretary,

     Near Bhagat Singh Square, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Dist.-

     Raipur (C.G.)


3.   Anita Gupta, W/o Shri Omji Gupta R/o H. No. 37/222, Chhotapara

     Road, Baijnathpara, New City Kotwali, Raipur Dist.- Raipur (C.G.)


                                                        ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

24.01.2022

Heard Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for the appellants.

Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate for

respondent No. 1, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No. 3.

2. This appeal, filed on 27.12.2021, is directed against an order dated

17.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.

4471 of 2020, whereby, the authorities were restrained from issuing any

appointment order to respondents No. 3 to 9 in the writ petition, who are

the appellants in this appeal.

3. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge

reads as follows:

"Considering the specific contention of

learned Counsel for Petitioner that since

Respondents No. 3 to 9 have already availed the

benefit of reservation for the purpose of

participating in the selection process, they should

not be granted second advantage of reservation

of availing the same under the Unreserved

category, particularly for the reason that none of

the Respondents No. 3 to 9 have got more than

50% mark which is otherwise the minimum

required percentage of mark for getting selection

under the Unreserved category, the Respondent

authorities are restrained from issuing any

appointment order to Respondents No. 3 to9 till

the next date of hearing."

4. It is submitted by Mr. Matre that because of extension of limitation

period by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Registry has observed that

there is no delay in filing the appeal.

5. On a query of the Court as to whether the appellants had entered

appearance before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Matre submits that the

appellants had entered appearance.

6. On a further query as to whether any affidavit or any application for

vacating stay had been filed before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Matre

submits that neither any affidavit nor any application for vacating the stay

has been filed till date.

7. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are not inclined to

entertain this appeal. However, we reserve liberty to the appellants to file

application for vacating of the interim order, if so advised and if any such

application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is disposed of.

                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                     (Arup Kumar Goswami)                      (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                          Chief Justice                                Judge



Brijmohan