Dismissed

Dr. P.L. Choudhary v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2011WPS/726/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a respondent's eligibility for a Dean post was dismissed as premature. The court held that since the selection process was ongoing and no appointment had been made, judicial intervention was inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Dr. P.L. Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

•'l'Wlsl.^ ?

¶2

C ^ ^<.r^7

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶4

W.P.NO...H.2£............/2011

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

Dr. P L Choudhary, S/0 Shri T R Choudhary,

¶8

Aged About 53 Years

¶9

R/0 F-8, Krishak Nagar

IGAU CAMPUS

Raipur (C.G.)

VERSUS

ESPONDENTS 1.

/ State of Chhattisgarh

¶15

Through the Secretary,

¶16

Department of Agriculture,

¶17

D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya

¶18

^^
^.-•^y
y..v^y 2.'
^ »•' ,*,
^,^
•sy

¶19

Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya

¶21

Through the Registrar

¶22

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya

Rrishak Nagar,

Raipur (C.G.)

Dr. A'wadhesh kumar Tripati

¶27

Head of Department, Dairy Bacteriology

¶28

College of Dairy Technology

¶29

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya

Krishak Nagar,

Raipur (C.G.)

The Dean

College of Dairy Technology

¶34

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya

Krishak Nagar,

Raipur (C.G.)

|i|^W)T-«,W^,||,B,,

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS.

¶40

HM^COJitaerOFJ^HAEaseASB^'BIL^iffiR

¶41

WRTTPETmON<S) No. 736 of2011

PETmONER

Dr. P.L.Choudhaty.

VERSUS

RE8PONDENTS State ofChhattisgarii & Ofhers.

¶46

PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CQNSTrTUTION QF ENDIA

¶47

SB: Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Aenawtei, J.

¶48

Present: Sourabh Jain, Advocate for fhe petittoner. Shri Ajit Sin^i, Panel Lawyer for Ifae State.

¶49

ORDERfORAL)

¶50

(Passed oa 07°' day of February, 2011)

¶51

The petitioner appears to be a candidate for selection and appointment on Ifae post ofDean, Daiiy Technology, piMSuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2010.

¶52

Challenge in this petition is to the candidature of tfae respondent No. 3 on the ground that he was appointed earlia- on 28.06.2005, as Professor, and the same was withdrawn subsequently on accotuit ofthe fact that he was not eligible to be appoitded as Professw, on 12.01.2007.

¶53

Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that fhe respondent No. 3 does not hold the requisite qualificaticm, thus, he may not be considered fbr selection and appointaeiit on tiie post of Dean. In support of his eontentioa, Shri Jain relies on a decision of Supreme Court in Rupa Rcmi Rakshit & Others v. Jharkhand OraminBank & Other^.

¶54

20W

¶55

The seleetion proeess fi»rappoiHtmeirt on the post ofDean is still an and no decision has been taken till' date, as no seleetion w appomtment has been made. The petitioaer has approadwd tUs Court to pre-empt the exercise likely to be done by the experts in the field. tf the petitioner feels that llie other candidates are sat better qualiBed or properly qualified, it is for the experts to exanine betore selecting or appointing a candidate. At this stage, at the instance of the {wtitioner, 'no order can be passed which unnecessary intervenes with the selection proceas and if aay order is passed, the selection process may be aot be fiur and unpartial. In Rupa P^am Rakshi^, it was a case where appointments were already made and therea.fter, challenge was made and the same was in question before Ifae Supreme Court. to the instant case, that stage has not yet come. Thus, reliance of fhe petitioner on the above case is without any basis as Ifae same is not applieable to the facts ofthe case.

¶56

sssw

¶57

¶58

Wifhout expressing any opiaion on merits offlie case, since tiie selection process is in progress and ft; is fiw the experts to consider the eligibility of a candidate, and as such, Itoe petition, being premature as no final seleetion has been made, is dismissed at the

¶59

motion stage itsetf.

¶60

Amit

¶61

Sd/Satish K. Agnihotri Judge

Dr. P.L. Choudhary v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. P.L. Choudhary 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sikshit Swarojgar Udyog Coopera. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Jaikrishna Binjhawar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mrs.Reena Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Seva Ram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anant Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Sushma Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.