Dismissed

Mailprakash Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2024WPS/680/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners serving as Rojgar Sahayak challenged their discharge following an advertisement replacing their categories. The court held that appointees under the new advertisement must be heard and since they were not impleaded, no relief could be granted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground that appointees under the new advertisement were not before the court.

Mailprakash Toppo Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:28898

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 680 of 2016

¶6

Mailprakash Toppo S/o Markhush Toppo, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Gram Panchayat Hathgada, Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Keshav Prasad Singh, S/o Ishwar Chand Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Naktimunda, Post Dokda, Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Panchayat and Rural Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisagrh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National, Rural Employment Guarantee, Rural Employment Guarantee, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur-Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Digitally
signed by A
A ANNAJEE
RAO
ANNAJEE Date:
RAO 2024.08.05
18:26:02
+0530

¶14

(Goutam Bhaduri, J)

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

02/08/2024

¶17

1. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on 12.01.2009 and they were rendering their service without there being any complaint. Petitioner No.1 belongs to the Category of Scheduled Tribe whereas petitioner no.2 belongs to OBC. The grievance of the

¶18

¶19

petitioners is that inspite of their satisfactory service, respondent no.2 issued an advertisement on 08.02.2016 to fill up the post of Rojgar Sahayak, replacing the categories of petitioners who were working on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contract basis and as a consequence of such advertisement, they were deprived of jobs.

¶20

2. It appears from the advertisement (Annexure P-2) that the reserved categories of ST and OBC meant for gram Panchayats Hathgada and Naktimunda have been replaced by another category to fill up the post Rojgar Sahayak and accordingly, applications were invited, and the petitioners were discharged.

¶21

3. Since the appointments were already made pursuant to the advertisement, the persons so appointed are required to be heard and they are not before this Court. Therefore, no relief can be granted at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

({GOUTAM BHADURI}) JUDGE

¶24

R a o

Mailprakash Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mailprakash Toppo 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

Gopal Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Resham Lal Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nishamunni Nagwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh