1 2025:CGHC:26581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3576 of 2018  Ajay Kumar Chaturvedani S/o S/o Shri B. L. Chaturvedani, Aged About 30 Years R/o Plot No. 11, Vidyut Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Animal Husbandry Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 06.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order Dated 08.01.2018 (P/1) issued by the Director Veterinary Services. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to give joining to the petitioner on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant 2 any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was selected to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and an appointment order was issued on 03.11.2014. He would further submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was pursuing P.h.d., therefore, he moved an application before the respondent authorities to extend the time of joining. He would also submit that the application moved by the petitioner was duly replied by the State authorities and the petitioner was directed to submit a notarized affidavit along with the bond vide letter dated 27.11.2014. He would contend that the petitioner submitted the required documents and after completion of Ph.d., he approached the authorities seeking permission to join the services, but he was not allowed. He would further contend that in the first round of litigation, in WPS No. 7207 of 2017, a direction was issued to respondent authorities to get factual enquiry done with regard to the deposition of the documents by the petitioner with the department. He would also contend that vide order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure P/1), the Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit the affidavit and bond with the respondent authorities. It is stated that the findings recorded by the Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh are erroneous and contrary to the material. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that in the representation made by the petitioner dated 28.06.2017, he himself admitted that he could not comply with the direction issued by the respondent authorities dated 27.11.2014. They would further submit that the Director, Veterinary Services, 3 Chhattisgarh inquired into the matter and recorded a finding that the petitioner could not deposit the required documents including the bond with the department, therefore, after a lapse of several years, he cannot be permitted to join the services. They would also contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Representation dated 28.06.2017 (Annexure R/2) made by the petitioner, annexed to the reply filed by the State makes it clear that the petitioner could not submit the documents including a bond with the department. The petitioner has not placed any document in the present petition to establish the fact that the notarized affidavit and bond as required were submitted before the competent authority pursuant to the letter dated 27.11.2014. As the petitioner himself was negligent; no relief can be granted, thus, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant