Disposed

Ku.Peeyusha Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2013WPS/2408/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment for a Shiksha Karmi post. The Court held the petition not maintainable due to an available alternative remedy under revisionary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to prefer a revision within one month, decided on merits within six months regardless of limitation.

Ku.Peeyusha Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE^{HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAIBILASPUR} W52~viQ Wamg. Rwg OF^2012. W. P. (S) mo.

¶2

PETI^{TION ER}

¶3

Ku.^{PeeyushaThakur,}

¶4

D/o.^{ShriRamSevakSingh} Thakur,^{agedabout24years,} R/o.^{nearSheetiaTemple,} Sheetiapara,^Kanker, District North^{BastarKanker(C.G.)}

¶5

MRESPCNDENTS

¶6

: 1. State^{ofC'nhattisgarh,}

¶7

Through : The^Secretary, Panchayat^andRurai

¶8

Deveiopment^Department D.K.S.^{Bhawan,Raipur(C.G.)} Chief^{ExecutiveOfficer,} Zila^{Panchayat,DistrictNorth} Bastar^Kanker(C.G.)

¶9

¶10

Ku.^{AnchaiaJaiswal,} D/o.^{ShriP.D.Jaiswal,Shiksha} Krami^{Grade—I,R/o.Viiiageand} post^{Gonvindpur,Kanker,} District^{NorthBastarKanker} (C.G.)

¶11

¶12

Smt.^{LekhikaGautam,}

¶13

¶14

W/o.^{RakeshGautam,Shiksha} Krami^{Grade-I,R/o.N.F.-6,} CSEB^{Colony,infrontofVan} Vidhyalaya,^GeedamRoad, Jagdalpur,^{DistrictBastar(C.G.)}

¶15

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

WP (S) No.2408 of 2012

PETITIONER

Ku. Peeyusha Thakur

-Versus-

RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶23

Present Shri Prafulla Bharat with Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Govt. Advocate for the State. Smt. Naushina Afrin Ali, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶24

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. o

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(4-12-201³⁾

¶27

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition chailenging the action of the respondent Zita Panchayat, Kanker, who has not included the petitioner in the select list and has consequently not appointed the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade~l (Biology).

¶28

In the matter of Arti Bhatnagar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others {2000(2)^MPLJ151}, it has been held that any person aggrieved by rejection of his candidature by the select committee or non-inclusion of his nameⁱⁿ the select list can also invoke revisionary jurisdiction contemplated under Rule 5 of the CG Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 read with Section 91 of the Panchayat RajAdhiniyam, 1993.

¶29

ln view of the availability of alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner prefers^a revision before the revisionary authority within a period of 1 month from today, the^{revisionaryauthorityshall} consider and decide the same on^its own merits^{withoutraisingthe} plea^of limitation within a further period of 6 months from the^dateof revision, after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶30

Barve

¶31

”WWW sdll— rM‘?“1'3 ntK‘m‘a Yrasha 3“dge

Ku.Peeyusha Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku.Peeyusha Thakur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Shrivas and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramcharan Rathore and Ors.

Mahendra Singh Rana and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Sarla Karmahe Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sumita Voditelwar and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

S.P. Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh and 6 Ors.