Bharati Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for the appellants.

Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No. 1, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

This appeal, filed on 27.12.2021, is directed against an order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 4471 of

2020, whereby, the authorities were restrained from issuing any appointment order to respondents No. 3 to 9 in the writ petition, who are the

appellants in this appeal.

The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

“Considering the specific contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner that since Respondents No. 3 to 9 have already availed the benefit of

reservation for the purpose of participating in the selection process, they should not be granted second advantage of reservation of availing the same

under the Unreserved category, particularly for the reason that none of the Respondents No. 3 to 9 have got more than 50% mark which is otherwise

the minimum required percentage of mark for getting selection under the Unreserved category, the Respondent authorities are restrained from issuing

any appointment order to Respondents No. 3 to9 till the next date of hearing.â€​

It is submitted by Mr. Matre that because of extension of limitation period by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Registry has observed that there

is no delay in filing the appeal.

On a query of the Court as to whether the appellants had entered appearance before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Matre submits that the

appellants had entered appearance.

On a further query as to whether any affidavit or any application for vacating stay had been filed before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Matre

submits that neither any affidavit nor any application for vacating the stay has been filed till date.

Considering the matter in its entirety, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, we reserve liberty to the appellants to file application for

vacating of the interim order, if so advised and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is disposed of.