Rajwar Posted As Peon At Office of Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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…
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6357 of 2016 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 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 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 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 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 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 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 (WPS No. 6357 of 2016) 2 - The Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B & R), Division Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner:- Ms. Prakriti Deo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board
06.01.2025
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 respondent- Department.
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 3 (WPS No. 6357 of 2016) working in the respondent-Department on the said post for a very long time.
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.
Operative part
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. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.