Rajendra Kumar Soni @ Rajendra Prasad Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3997 of 2013

¶5

Rajendra Kumar Soni @ Rajendra Prasad Soni S/o Mathura Prasad Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Sindhi Dharmshala, Bhanupratappur, Civil And Revenue Distt North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplied And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Collector Distt North Bastar, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Yuvraj S/o Shri Balram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kokpur, Tah Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt North Bastar Kanker, Cg, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Vivek Sharma , Advocate
For State	: M s. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate holding the brief of
	Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

1 1.07.2024

¶16

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶17

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire relevant records with regard to the petitioner.

¶18

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction thereby quash to order dated 29.05.2010(Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No. 2 and petitioner may be considered/appointed on the post of driver.

¶19

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to verify the veracity of documents submitted by the respondent No. 3 for the post of driver and if documents submitted by the respondent No. 3 be found incorrect then appropriate action may be taken against the authorities including respondent No. 3.

¶20

10.4 Any other relief or relief(s), by this Hon’ble Court, think proper, may be granted, in view of the facts and

¶21

2

¶22

circumstances, and documents available on record.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.03.2009 for various posts including one post of driver, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3/Yuvraj submitted their application forms. He further submitted that the driving license was issued to respondent No. 3 on 05.11.1999, whereas, he had submitted the experience certificate of driving vehicle from 1995 to 1999 and he was awarded 10 marks against the experience. He also submitted that the petitioner was meritorious to respondent No. 3. It is further contended that the petitioner was registered at District Employment Exchange prior to respondent No. 3, but these aspects were not considered by the authority on a representation made by the petitioner on 3rd September, 2012 and in a cryptic manner the representation was rejected by the Additional Collector, North Bastar Kanker on 21.01.2013. It is also contended that the order passed on 21.01.2013 is liable to be set-aside as no reasons have been assigned.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submitted that the authority concerned after taking into consideration the entire material available on record, passed the order and rejected the application. They further submitted that respondent No. 3 was appointed to the post of driver strictly in accordance with the law.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶26

From a perusal of Annexure P/17, the order issued by the Additional Collector dated 21.01.2013 on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.09.2012, it is quite vivid that in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason, the same has been rejected. Such an order is not expected from administrative authorities of

¶27

3

¶28

higher cadres.

¶29

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order passed by the Additional Collector, North Bastar Kanker dated 21.01.2013 is hereby quashed. The authority concerned is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh after affording the due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 and pass an appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

$iddhant

Rajendra Kumar Soni @ Rajendra Prasad Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Soni @ Rajendra Prasad Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Shiv Dayal Rai Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors.

Deepti Namdeo and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bhadauria Suneet Singh Vs Coal India Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Direcrtor and Ors.

Lakesh Kumar Chandradev Vs State Bank Of India And Ors.

Radheshyam Khairwar and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.