Disposed¶4

Prahlad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2025WPS/6357/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 6357 of 2016; decided 06.01.2025 by Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. Daily-wager Peons of the Public Works Department (Ambikapur/Surguja) sought weightage in regular recruitment advertised on 17.10.2016; the recruitment having concluded, the petition was disposed of with liberty to apply in future recruitment. Keywords: daily wagers, weightage, Peon, Public Works Department, Article 226, recruitment concluded, future recruitment, disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued; petitioners granted liberty to make application for appointment in future recruitment in accordance with law, if not already appointed. ¶4

Prahlad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

(WPS No. 6357 of 2016)

¶3

Digitally ADITI signed by DIWAN ADITI KAIWART DIWAN KAIWART

¶4

2025:CGHC:694

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6357 of 2016

¶7

1 - Prahlad S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 42 Years Caste Rajwar Posted As Peon At Office of Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur Circle, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Dablu Ram, S/o Shivbarat Ram, Aged About 35 Years Caste Rajwar, Posted As Peon At Office Of Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur Circle, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Netlal Sarthi, S/o Shri Jagram, Aged About 39 Years Caste Ghasiya Posted As Peon At Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division 1, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Mahendra Prasad Rajwade, S/o Shri Lorgod Ram Rajwade, Aged About 35 Years Caste Rajwar, Posted As Peon At Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur Circle, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Sanjay Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Nandu Ram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years Caste Bargah, Posted As Peon, At Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur Circle, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - Sonu Lakda, S/o Shri Preet Ram Lakda, Aged About 26 Years Caste Oraon, Posted As Peon, At Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur Circle, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Petitioner(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

¶17

(WPS No. 6357 of 2016)

¶18

2 - The Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

3 - The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶20

4 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B & R), Division Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶21

--- Respondent(s)

¶22

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶23

For Petitioner:- Ms. Prakriti Deo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer

¶24

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶25

06.01.2025

¶26

1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought to challenge advertisement dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure P/1), which relates to regular recruitment to the post of Peon on the ground that they are working on the post of Peon as daily wagers for more than 8-9 years with the respondentDepartment.

¶27

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the subject recruitment has been concluded, but the petitioners are entitled to get some weightage in the said selection process on the ground that they are already

¶28

¶29

(WPS No. 6357 of 2016)

¶30

working in the respondent-Department on the said post for a very long time.

¶31

3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that since the subject recruitment has already been concluded, therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to make application for appointment in future recruitment in accordance with law.

¶32

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I am of the considered opinion that since the subject recruitment has already concluded, no direction can be issued at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make application for appointment in future recruitment in accordance with law, if not already appointed.

¶33

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶34

@d!t!

Prahlad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulapati Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dropadi Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s. Jaiswal Construction Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Dileshwar Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Ashwani Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vidya Lal Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh