This order dismisses a review petition challenging a judgment that held 58% reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates unconstitutional. No grounds for review were made out.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 175 of 2022
Arun Kumar Pathak S/o Late Ramesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Post Sadhwani Distt Gourela-PendraMarwahi (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
| For Petitioner : |
Mr. Arun Kumar Pathak, Petitioner in |
|---|---|
| person. | |
| For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : | Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu , Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
01.12.2022
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pathak, petitioner in person.
2
19.09.2022 passed in WPC 2072 of 2014, which was decided along with WPC No. 591 of 2012 and batch.
3.2 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to entitle to give the Mains Exams on behalf of those exams specially CGPSC State Administrative Service 2013 and 2014 which I the Petitioner have been deprived due to excessive and unconstitutional reservation of 58%.
3.3 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to A writ/ writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to declare all the recruitment null and void from the date of first recruitment and arrange all the recruitment process again.
3.4 A writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents to provide the compensation not less than one core Indian rupee that
3
career has been totally demolished of the petitioner by
the Government.
Hon’ble the High Court find appropriate for the petitioner.”
out for review and accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu ) Chief Justice Judge
Hem
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient ground to allow review of the judgment in WPC No. 2072 of 2014?
Arun Kumar Pathak
State of Chhattisgarh
Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh
Arup Kumar Goswami
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
