Dhaniram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4055 Chatt

                                        1


                                                                          NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          W.P.(S). No. 4331 of 2022

Dhaniram S/o Devprasad Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village
Katiyarras , Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

1.     State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Medical And
       Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur,
       District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2.     Divisional Joint Director Health Service Bastar Division District
       Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

3.     Chief Medical And Health Officer Kondagaon, District Kondagaon
       Chhattisgarh.



For Petitioner                    : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate

For Respondents/State             : Mr. Amrito Das, Additional A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board

27/06/2022

1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the

petitioner had participated in the process for appointment initiated by

the respondent No.3 and he was placed in the merit list, however, later

on, he has been disqualified on the ground that he is not a local

resident of District Kondagaon. It is submitted that by order of this

Court in W.P.(S) No. 1081 of 2020, Nand Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs.

State of C.G. & Ors., decided on 12.05.2022, the notification dated

17.01.2012 has been declared as ultra vires according to which, the

petitioner has the entitlement to be appointed in District - Kondagaon.

Appropriate order be passed.

2. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that in view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad

Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC

383, the appointment process restricted to the candidates residing in

the same District was deprecated, the same judgment has been

followed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1081 of 2020. Hence, this petition

may be disposed off directing the petitioner to file representation.

3. After considering on the submission and taking into consideration the

ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1081

of 2020, this petition is disposed off. The petitioner is granted liberty to

file representation within a time limit of 10 days. On filing of such

representation, the respondents No.2 and 3 shall be obliged to

consider on the same and take decision at the earliest, within time limit

of 15 days and also before finalization of the recruitment process, from

the the date the copy of the order is received along with the

representation. It is made clear that this Court has not made any

observation on the merits of the case.

4. With these observations, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram