Single bench judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging non-consideration of petitioner for promotion. Court held remedy lies against the revisional authority.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach revisional authority.
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.
/
WZF
W
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT '1 V ‘1 w.P. (S) N0. q /2o1o
BILASPUR
/" Ku. Anju Pahdey D /o Balmukund Pandey, aged about 24 years, R/ovWard No. 19, Kalabara,p Mahasamd,un District Mahaundsam C.G.
PETITIONER
?M
VERSUS
, 1. State of C.G., through the Secretary Pancayath and Rural Develmentop Department, DKS Bhawan RaipurC.G. 2. The Janpad Panchayat Chhura, through the Chefi Executive Officer, Chhura, Distictr Raipur 'C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN ’ APPROPRIATE wR/IT"“’“"Iiv THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS l CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION l ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC.
L1
/0r9<br>
HEGH SOLE? QF CHHIE‘T?§$@%§~'-€H. B§LA§P3J . $1NGLE BENCH : HQN’ELE $HRE PEA$HA€§T KUMAR T£E$HRAJ. WR (S) N01244: af 2mQ
PETiTléNER Ku. Anju Pandey.
Versus
RESPQNBENTS State of Chha‘rftEgarh and another WRIT PETITION UNDER ART‘CLE 226 OF THE CON$TiTUTiGN 6F WEIR
Shri Rakesh Pandey, ccmse! for pétitianer. Shri AV. Shridhar, Panei Lawyer miheStaie.
GR§L GR§§R i1§§6112§12§
Petitioner hag nray<ad for reiief ithat $19. re$pcm§€ari5 ‘cye éijmcmd to cen$§der her case for abnointmenr on the ::zs::3*:'0?‘ $hii<$ha Karmé Grade- iii. According tG him in Spire 0f beir‘rg eiégibééam meriroricus, her case is nai’. considered.
2, In the maiier of irr’fi Sfrai'nagfar and atmrs Vs, Siam@fMP.and oiheris reported in 2m?) (2) MPLJ 15¢ ir haS been herd thai agairrst anaction of a Panchayat body regarding non consideratian andlor non i‘ncrusJon of a canrjidate in the pracess cf 5ereciionrsamerrabiet0therevrsicmar jur§sd§ct§en of the revisional authority under the Chhatiiwarh Panchayat (Appear! and Revision Rum) 1995.
3r in View cf the above, the ihstant peritim is not maimamabie a$ ihe Detitiorrér ha$ an alternaiiver remedyto approachtherevieioriaieuiheriry. A. Aceerdingiyi the wrii periiierwis eismieeeeWirhiiberfyit)irre getirienerre emmach the revieiemi etéttferiteiwithina periedetonememt‘nfiremtedey, it . euch revieien eetitiori is pi'eterreei the cemetnee autherity eheiicetteiderand eecide the decision onitsownmerits.
/ SdlPrashantKumarMishra Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for alleged non-consideration of a candidate for promotion from Karmé Grade-II to VIII Grade.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the revisional authority under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeals and Revision Rules) 1995.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs, State of MP and others reported in 2003 (2) MPLJ 150Explained¶18
Ku. Anju Pandey
State of C.G., through the Secretary Pancayath and Rural Developt Department
The Janpad Panchayat Chhura
Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
