Disposed

Neelanchal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2014WPS/2305/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought a direction for preference in recruitment due to their service as Multi Purpose Health Workers. The court dismissed the petition by directing them to file fresh representations within one month, which the authorities must decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to file fresh representations within one month and respondent authorities to decide the same on merits within two months.

Neelanchal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HI^H COURT OF CHHATnsfiARH AT

¶2

BILASPUR

¶3

WRITPETmONrs) N0. ^3^ OF 2009 81^

¶4

PETmONERS:-

¶5

l.^Neelanchal S/0 Dhansai Singh, aged about 26 years, OccupationAAulti purpose Health worker, R/0 Pandripani (Farsabahar) DistrictJashpur, (C.6.)

¶6

,^..^s^-;
^..^ ^r"^
^"'^•^w

¶7

Salik S/0 Sadhram, aged about 39 years, Occupation- Multi purpose Health worker R/0 Village- Patripali Jheradih, Post- Deewanpur, TahsilPatthalgaon, District-

¶8

Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶9

¶10

1. Mohammed Meraj Ansari, S/0 Shri Mohammed Majid Ansari, aged about 26 years,

¶11

Occupation- Multi purpose Health worker, R/0 Vilfage-Ludeg, District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶12

Ravi Kiran Dadsena, S/0 Shri AAurlidhar Dadsena, a9ed about 37 years, Occupation- Multi purpose Health worker, R/0

¶13

Shekharpur, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶14

¶15

Dev Singh Ram, S/0 Shri Jagdev Ram, aged about 35 years Occupation- Multi purpose Health Worker. R/0 Village- Kardega, Post- Makribandha duldula, District-

¶16

Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶17

¶18

Bharat Lal Dadsena, S/0 Shri Bandhuram badsena, aged about 37years, Occupation- Multi purpose Health worker, R/0 Village- Kachhar, Post- Lurek, Tahsil- PatthaJgaon,

¶19

District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶20

Laxman Kumar Choudhry, S/0 Shri Gayaram Choudhry, aged about 35 years, OccupationMulti purpose Health worker, R/0 Post- Lurek, District- Jashpur,

¶21

/ (C.G.)

¶22

Manoj Kumar, S/0 bular Sai, aged about 27 years, OccupationMulti purose Health worker, R/0 Village- Kukurbhuka,TahsilPatthalgaon, District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

RESPONDENTS :

¶25

^"" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantaralaya, Raipur, bistrict- Raipur, (C.G.) ^" 2. Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.) 3. Collector. Jashpur, DistritJashpur, (C.6.) ^^" 4. Chief Medjcal Officer, District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

¶26

Union of India, through Secretary, Health Department, New Delhi.

¶27

WRIT PETITCON U/A 226 OF THE CONSmTUTCON OF INDIA

¶28

¶29

¶30

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶31

WRIT PETITION /S) N0.2305 OF 2009

PETITIONERS

Neelanchal & Others

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & Others

¶37

(Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India)

¶38

Single Bench : hfon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶39

Present:Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the Union of India.

¶40

ORDER fOPEN COURT)

¶41

(Passed on this 3rd day ofJuly, 2014)

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

By this petition, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondent authorities to give preference to the petitioners who have completed about two years service as Multi Purpose Health Worker e.g. Malaria Field Worker and Malaria Link Worker in the recruitment process initiated by the respondent authorities.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by raising the grievances the petitioners have made representation before the respondent authorities, but the same does not fructify.

¶45

At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that if the petitioners submit fresh representations before the concerned competent authority raising all of their grievances, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.

¶46

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. If the petitioners file fresh representations before the concerned competent authority within a period of one month from today, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation along with copy of this order.

¶47

It is made clear that this Courthas not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representations, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any

¶48

observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

¶49

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

Neelanchal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelanchal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

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

C.G.Infrastructure Dev.Corporation Vs Niman Khalkho and Ors.

Shivchran Suryawansi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/s Dayalal Meghji And Company Vs Smt.kamla Bai And Ors.

Punit Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Union of India and Another Vs P.K. Bhowmick and Another

U.K. Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.