Disposed

Rashmi Subba v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2011WPS/4831/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of candidature for State Civil Services examination due to non-submission of demand draft. Petitioner's counsel for respondents admitted duplicate payment, leading the court to dispose of the petition on that basis.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed based on admission by respondents' counsel that duplicate demand draft was submitted.

Rashmi Subba Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

mm^mama ’y

(f‘ 1@_\ ¢

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION (S) No. {M3} Of 2009

¶6

Petitioner:

¶7

RASHMI SUBBA,

¶8

D/ o Shri Prem Bahadur Subba, Aged about 29 years, presently working and posted as ‘State Accountant Officer in the Sport and Youth welfares department Raipur, R/o^— M.T.O. [workshop], Old police lines, House number 172, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) Versus Respondents /’ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) V/ 2. The r Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission [C.G.P.S.C.]; Through It’s Secretary, Shanker nager Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission [C.G.P.S.C.], Shanker Nager Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) The Controller,

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶10

(Hon.^{Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker)} Writ Petition (S) No. 4831 of 2009

PETITIONER

Rashmi Subba

VERSUS

‘ RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶15

Shri Vijay Deshmukh counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Sinha counsel for respondent Nos.2,3 'and 4.

¶16

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶17

,ORDER (07.09.2011)

¶18

Challenge in this petition is to the astion of the Chhattjsgarh State Public Service Commission whereby the application of the petitioner^{fOrtheStateCivilServices} (Mains)^{examination,2008nas} been rejected on the ground of non submission of demand draft of Rs. 'of 300 as required under the relevant Rules and terms the advertisement. Name of the petitioner has been included in the list of candidates declared ineligible for the said examination, vide annexure P—6.

¶19

Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, at the outset, submits that candidature of the petitioner^would not be rejected merely on the ground of non submission of demand, draft as he has satisfied the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission by submitting duplicate demand draft. He submits that the petitioner^would be permitted to participate in the mains examination subject to his eligibility on other counts. 3. In view of the statement made by the counsel for'respondents 2 to 4, nothing survives in the present petition and it is accordingly disposed of. I

¶20

SdlPritinker^Diwaker Judge

Rashmi Subba v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Subba v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diwaker Singh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mithla Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Jamadar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mamta Choudhry Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mantu Ram Dhruv and Another Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.