Disposed

Jayshree Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2019WPS/3552/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition concerning eligibility for Rural Horticulture Extension Officer posts. It directed the department to complete filling 18 vacant posts from the waiting list while ensuring the petitioner's claim remains valid during the election code of conduct.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to take steps to ensure the remaining 18 posts are filled from the waiting list at the earliest.

Jayshree Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3552 of 2019

¶5

Jayshree Kurre W/o Pawan Kumar Kurre Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Khairakhurd, Post Ramhepur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Horticulture And Field Forestry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

Director Indravati Bhawan, Second Block Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

---Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner	: Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate.
For State	: Ms. Shriya Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

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

¶13

10/05/2019

¶14

Ignoring the default pointed out by the Registry, the matter is heard finally at motion stage and disposed off.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner appears in the waiting list for the post of Rural Horticulture Extension Officer.

¶16

The contention of the petitioner is that initially a list of 306 candidates were issued with an order of appointment and out of that 123 did not report for duty, for which a fresh list from the waiting list was issued on 07/09/2018 and out of the said 123 candidates also 39 candidates did not report for duty. Then, thereafter a list was issued for 39 candidates from the remaining waiting list candidates vide

¶17

-2-

¶18

order dated 06/10/2018 and again from the said list of 39 candidates, 18 candidates did not report for duty and thus 18 vacant posts are to be filled up from the remaining candidates in the waiting list and by which the petitioner also would become eligible.

¶19

Considering the fact that the department has in the past issued an appointment orders to a large number of candidates from the same waiting list and there is also vacant post available and the validity of the waiting list is still surviving, this Court does not intend to keep the writ petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to take appropriate steps ensuring that the remaining 18 posts if the department intends to fill up those posts from the waiting list be completed at the earliest. This Court further makes an observation that enforcement of the code of conduct during elections should not come in the way of the department in issuing appointment orders. At the same time, because of the code of conduct for election being in operation, the claim of the petitioner also should not get extinguished in between.

¶20

It is made clear that the department would be free to issue appropriate orders subject to verification of the facts and the merit of the petitioner so far as the post lying vacant is concerned.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶22

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶23

Rahul

Jayshree Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayshree Kurre 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

B. K. Vaishnav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Peter Alisavli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R.K.Ganjeer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs Arun Deo Gautam

Pankaj Kumar Giri Vs Rajesh Tiwari

Babulal Lodhi @ Babulal Kalpure Vs State of Chhattisgarh