Allowed

Saj Kumar Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2019WPS/3249/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a writ petition where the petitioner's B.Sc. qualification was not entered in the service book due to clerical errors in name and examination permission records. The Court directed respondent officials to scrutinize the claim and ensure the qualification is entered within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to scrutinize the petitioner's claim and enter his B.Sc. (Biology) qualification in the service book within four months.

Saj Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3249 of 2019

¶5

Saj Kumar Ratre S/o Pritam Lal Ratre Aged About 37 Years Posted As Regular Attendant, At Outline Dispensary Gatwa, (Attached ) At Outline Dispensary Veterinary Masaniyakala, Block Sakti, P/s Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Director, Directorate Of Veterinary Service, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Sakti, Block Sakti, P/s Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶13

	---Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Rahul Mishra,Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶15

02/05/2019

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner who is presently working as an Attendant under the respondents had completed his graduation course in B.Sc. (Biology) in the year 2016 and has since made a request to the respondents to enter the qualification of the petitioner in his service book.

¶17

It appears that the authorities concerned have not exceeded to the request of the petitioner on some pretext or the other, like the name of the petitioner in the mark-sheets of 1 st and 2 nd semesters has been wrongly typed as “Saj Kumar Patre” instead of “Saj Kumar Ratre”. Further it also appears that the qualification has not been entered on account of the fact that the record

¶18

-2-

¶19

does not show that the permission having being sought by the petitioner for the 1 st year examination. Though the petitioner submits that he has received the permission from the Department prior to his appearing in the examination itself for all the three years. It is only that while the permission was granted for the first year, he was posted at a different place and the permission was sought from the concerned officer posted at the said place.

¶20

Given the said facts and on perusal of record, what is revealed is that the petitioner has been granted permission for participating in the said course and it also appears that so far as the mark-sheets for the 1 st and 2 nd semesters, there appears to be a typographical error, so far as the surname of the petitioner is concerned, which subsequently stood rectified and the mark-sheets and the degree that have been subsequently issued all have proper name and also have proper photograph of the petitioner in case of doubt in respect of the identity of the petitioner.

¶21

Given the said facts, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents No.2 to 4 to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner and ensure that the necessary qualification that the petitioner has obtained that of B.Sc. (Biology) is entered in his service book.

¶22

Let this exercise be completed at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

¶24

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶25

Ved

Saj Kumar Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saj Kumar Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Maniram Baiga Vs Shri Bheem Singh

The Public Service Commission Vs Smt. Richa Tiwari

Laha Ram Ratrey Vs Gourav Dwivedi

Abdul Habib Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sankalp Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sweeti Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh