Dismissed¶39

Rahul Patley v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jun 2025WA/365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal maintainability; intra-Court appeal against interim order; part stay not grantable; interim order continuing to operate in appellant's favour; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; State Medical Board examination; disability; Rural Horticulture Extension Officer; Gariyaband; Baloda Bazar; identical matter disposal; Writ Appeal No.338/2025 order dated 27.05.2025; WPS No.2886/2024; High Court of Chhattisgarh; Ramesh Sinha CJ; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the rival submissions and the materials on record, the Court found the facts and issue involved in this appeal identical to Writ Appeal No.338/2025 and deemed it appropriate not to take a view other than the one taken therein. ¶38

Rahul Patley Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the intra-Court writ appeal against the interim order dated 02.05.2025 in WPS No.2886/2024 (liberty to the State to proceed, but no final decision without leave, and direction for medical examination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) is maintainable. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

By adopting the view taken in Writ Appeal No.338/2025: since the interim order dated 2.5.2025 still operates in favour of the appellant and no order has been passed affecting his rights, the writ appeal is not maintainable and part stay of such an interim order cannot be granted.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J) dismissed intra-Court Writ Appeal No.365/2025 filed by three Rural Horticulture Extension Officers against the interim order dated 02.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2886/2024, by which the Single Judge had granted the respondents liberty to proceed against the appellants and other selected candidates but restrained them from taking a final decision without the leave of the Court, and had directed medical examination strictly under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 through a State Medical Board to be constituted by the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare. Finding the facts and issue identical to Writ Appeal No.338/2025, dismissed on 27.05.2025, the Court declined to take a different view and dismissed the appeal in terms of the order dated 27.05.2025 — that appeal having been held not maintainable where the interim order still operated in favour of the appellant, no order affected his rights, and part stay could not be granted.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27532-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.06.25 17:15:19 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 365 of 2025

¶7

1 - Rahul Patley S/o Shri Jagdish Chand Patley Aged About 34 Years Working As Rural Horticulture Extension Officer, Block Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, C.G. R/o Panchsheel Colony, H.N. 51, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001

¶8

2 - Gautam Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Siddha Ram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years Working As Rural Horticulture Extension Officer In The Office Of Assistant Director Of Horticulture, Block Mainpur District Gariyaband, C.G. R/o Village Boirpara, Post Deorhat Block Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Aman Rathore S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Rathore Aged About 32 Years Working As Rural Horticulture Extension Officer In The Office Of Assistant Director Of Horticulture Baloda Bazar, Block Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, R/o Village And Post Bacharwar (Pateratola) Police Station Pendra, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Agriculture Production Commissioner (APC), Department of Agriculture Development, Farmers Welfare And Bio Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 - Directorate of Horticulture And Farm Industry Through Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

¶15

3 - Assistant Director Horticulture, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

4 - Assistant Director Horticulture, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Appellants	: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General
	assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy
	Advocate General

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

25.06.2025

¶24

1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State.

¶25

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the interim order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2886/2024 , whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the interim order and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the appellants and other selected candidates but they have been restrained from taking a final decision without the leave of the Court. Further, a direction was issued for the medical examination of the appellant and other similarly selected candidates strictly in accordance

¶26

¶27

with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “Act of 2016”) in a fair and transparent manner. The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare has been directed to constitute a State Medical Board for examination of the appellants and other selected candidates and to submit its report.

¶28

3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.338/2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 observing as follows :-

¶29

“7. Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to

¶30

the disability certificate issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon on the basis of the disability certificate. A complaint was made and the certificate of the appellant and other selected candidates was examined by a three member committee. A report was submitted and findings were recorded in favour of the appellant and other selected candidates. It appears that the disability certificates and persons suffering from disabilities were not examined by the Medical Board or any expert body, therefore, the department issued showcause notices to the appellant and other selected candidates and those notices were challenged by filing various writ petitions. The

¶31

¶32

Writ Court vide order dated 21.6.2023 passed a protective order in favour of the appellant and other selected candidates. Vide order dated 2.5.2025, the writ Court permitted the State to continue with the proceedings but restrained them from passing the final order and in the meanwhile, directed the Secretary, Department of Health of Family Welfare to constitute a State Medical Board for examination of the appellant and other selected candidates and to submit a report.

¶33

9. The appellant has not assailed the interim order passed in the writ petition dated 2.5.2025 rather he has sought a part stay, which cannot be granted. A perusal of the order dated 2.5.2025 would show that the interim order is still operating in favour of the appellant. No order has been passed affecting his rights, therefore, the writ appeal is not maintainable. The appellant would be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him before the writ Court.

¶34

10. Accordingly, in our opinion, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ”

¶35

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the

¶36

¶37

present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.338/2025, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same terms.

¶38

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.338/2025 , this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.338/2025 .

¶39

5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.338/2025 .

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶41

Anu

Rahul Patley v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Patley v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yes Bank Limited Vs the Tashilar

Ram Baran Chaurasia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chamru Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Kumar Sahni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dileep Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jagriti Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh