Bhuneshwar Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Collector (Tribal Development) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Raigarh Branch, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

13/02/2025

¶16

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶17

The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶18

Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):-

¶19

10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal.

¶20

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the order impugned dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure P-

¶21

passed by the office of respondent no. 3.

¶22

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date: 2025.02.17 11:45:36 +0530

¶23

2

¶24

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give the five bonus marks to the petitioner in the certificate of below poverty line as (Annexure P-5) and consider the claim of petitioner for employment under the OBC category for the post of peon.

¶25

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.

¶26

10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.

¶27

Facts of the case, in brief are that, in pursuance of advertisement dated 02.6.2012 published by respondent authorities for appointment on the post of contingency paid employees, the petitioner submitted application for the post of Peon under the Category of OBC along with all requisite documents. Despite that, the petitioner has not been appointed on the said post and his representation filed in this regard has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure-P/1).

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement, communication dated 04.10.2014 (Annexure-P/4) was made to the petitioner to submit original ration card and BPL Survey List. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted photocopy of the original ration card and BPL Survey list. Despite that, he has not been granted 05 marks as bonus, whereas, the petitioner was very well covered under the poverty line. He would further submit that the petitioner has submitted all the required documents, but, he has been deprived from providing employment, therefore, relief(s) sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him.

¶29

The State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply would submit that, when the petitioner filed application (Annexure-P/3) in pursuance of the advertisement, he had not filed necessary

¶30

3

¶31

documents, particularly original ration card and certificate of below poverty line. Therefore, communication was made to the petitioner on 04.10.2014 vide Annexure P/4 to submit original ration card and BPL list. Despite that, the petitioner failed to submit original ration card, rather he submitted only certificate of below poverty line vide Annexure-P/6. Therefore, five marks as bonus was not granted to him. The petitioner did not submit original ration card despite repeated communication, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

As per the advertisement (Annexure-P/2), bonus marks were to be granted to the persons having their names in the latest BPL list. Perusal of the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure-P/3) shows that he had annexed BPL certificate and other documents along with his application. But in the BPL Certificate it has not been mentioned that said certificate pertains to which year. As per Annexure-P/4, the petitioner was informed many times for submission of his original ration card and BPL Survey list 1997. In response to Annexure P/4, the petitioner had submitted photo copy of his original ration card vide Annexure P/6 on 08.10.2014. He did not submit his original ration card despite instruction given by the respondent authorities. Though vide Annexure-P/6, the petitioner has stated that he submitted BPL certificate, but the year to which the certificate relates is not mentioned therein. Thus, it is found that necessary documents required for grant of 05 bonus marks were not submitted by the petitioner, therefore, he was not granted 05 marks as bonus.

¶34

4

¶35

Thus, since the petitioner did not deposit required documents for getting 05 bonus marks, therefore, not granting him said bonus marks by the respondent authorities, is not found to be illegal, as such, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, hence, the same is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶38

Bini

Bhuneshwar Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuneshwar Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor Lokeshwari Vs General in Public (If Any Objection)

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Dushyant Jangde Vs Pradeep Kumar Bahskar (Dead) Through its Legal Representative

Rajkumar Vs Mohd. Imran

Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum Vs Mohammad Asif Ahmed

Roshni Das Vs Swapnil Das