Division Bench dismissed appeals challenging dismissal of writ petitions seeking orders against State for consideration for Ayurvedic Compounder posts held void due to degrees from colleges declared bogus.
Appeal dismissed as it was found to be totally devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$-^^ y;^l®l^t1
a^-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WritAppeal No...L6?7...../2011
Petitioners.: 1. Mahendra Prakash Patel. ^' ^eHonJS:S/0 Narottam Prasad Patel, Aged about 28Years. R/0 Village - Konchara, Post-Mittu-Navaghaon, Police Station - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) -2. Purshottam Yadav. S/0 Bhaiya Lal Yadav, Aged about 29 Years. -^r R/0 Village 8& Post- Sadhavani, Police Station - Gourella, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Kishun Ram Paikara. /3. // .\Mv^ S/0 Jugma ram Paikara, Aged about 34 Years. .^M^ R/0 Village 85 Post - Dipadhih Kala ^Zc&rl^ •\ Police Station-SankarGarh, District-Sarguja (C.G.) ^^y / J^ 4. Man Pratap Paikara / S/0 Bohat Singh Paikara, Aged about 30 Years. '<'^ ^f' R/0 Village - Jatadeyri, Post - Aamadad, Police Station - Pendra, District- Bilaspur(C.G.) 5. Mohan Ram Paikara / S/0 Hadbad Ram Paikara, Aged about 34 Years. R/0 Village & Post- Dipadhih Kala Police Station-SankarGarh, District-Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS:- ^ 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through :- Secretary Department of Higher Education, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. (C.G.) »^ 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh
State Of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Through: ~ Secretary
Department ofAyurved Yoga & Natural Therapy, Yunani, Sidha & Hemeo (Ayush ), Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. (C.G.)
WRIT APPEAL U/S 2 (1) OF THE C.G. HIGH COURT (APPEL TQ
DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 )
^
HICTLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
D.B.: Hon?ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre & Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhaiuddin
Writ Aooeal No. 107 of 2011
APPELLANTS Mahendra Prakash Patel and others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another
And;
^—
Writ Aooeal No.312 of 2011
APPELLANTS Veer Singh Kerketta and another
Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others
WRIT APPEALS UNDER SECTION 2(11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH). ACT, 2006
Appearance :
Mr. Hemant Gupta^Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.
Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State in both the appeals.
ORDER
(04.07.2012)
The following order of the Court was passed by
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Heard.
(2) The decision rendered in W.A. No. 107 of 2011 shall also govern the disposal ofother connected appeal being W.A.No 312 of 2011 because both the appeals involve common question.
(3) This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioners of W.P. (S) 2675 of 2009 under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High
V
Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the common order dated 24th of January 2011 passed by the Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition.
(4) By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitioh filed by the writ petitioners and declined to granthimtherelief claimedinthewrit petition.
(5) So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners?
(6) Facts ofthe case are short:-
The appellant applied for the post of "Ayur^edic Compounderw pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State. Since he was not considered eligible for the said post by the State and hence, he filed a writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises claiming a writ of mandamus against the State for consideration of his case'for the post to which he had applied i.e. Ayurvedic Compounder. The writ Court by impugned order dismissed the writ petition which has now given rise to filing of this appeal by the writ petitioner.
(7) It is not in dispute that the diploma/degree on the basis of which the appellants had applied considering them to be eligible and fulfilling the criteria for the said post was not recognized by the State and in our opinion rightly. It was for the reason that the College/University which had issued the degree/diploma in the concerned subject to the appellants were declared either bogus or/and fake by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Prof. Yashpal and anather^ vs State of Chattisaarh and others, AXR 2005 SC 2026. Indeed opening of such College and University by the authorities were held as
^^^—^,'x. T:^ Yi^i^. \ ' '^....^''.^"^•s-
virtually fraud committed by the authorities concerned on the public and all such Colleges and Universities were directed to be wound up by the orders of the Supreme Court. Since the degree/diploma were found to be issued by such University/College, which suffered blow from the orders of the Supreme Court and hence, the appellants were held as not possessing the requisite qualification.
(8) In our considered opinion, therefore, the State was justified in not giving any due consideration to such degree/diploma issued by such unrecognized College/University to the appellants. They were thus rightly held as candidates not possessing the requisite qualification for the post in question and hence, their writ petition was rightly dismissed as being totally devoid of any merit.
(9) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed .
(10) A copy of this order shall be kept in records of W.A. No.312of2011.
Sd/Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre G. Minhajuddin Judge Judge
shyna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the applicants.
Whether applicants possessing degrees from colleges recognized as bogus by the Supreme Court were eligible for employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prof. Yashpal and another vs State of Chhattisgarh and othersExplained¶37
Prof. Yashpal and another vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, AIR 2005 SC 2026 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Prakash Patel and others
State of Chhattisgarh
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
