1 2025:CGHC:8638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5859 of 2018  Smt. Neera Yadav D/o S/o Ajay Kumar Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Taga Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattiagarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Collector District Panchayat Janjgir District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Janjgir District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Akaltara District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Suryakant Kashyap S/o S/o Shiv Prashad Kashyap R/o Village Taga Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioners. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.20 10:50:32 +0530 2 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to issue Writ of quo Warranto to the respondent no. 4 for termination to the service in the interest of justice. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of respondent No. 4 was not present in the select list even though he was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Class I against the post reserved for OBC (open). He would further submit that initially, an enquiry was conducted, but no action has been taken yet. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against respondent No. 4. 3. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that the name of respondent No. 4 is present at serial No. 30 in the select list. He would further submit that respondent No. 4 was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I reserved for the OBC (open) category. He would also submit that on a complaint of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the allegations were found false. It is contended that respondent No. 4 was placed under suspension for a considerable period on account of a false complaint. He would state that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 4. Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Vipin Tiwari. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the name of respondent No. 4 is present in the select list at serial No. 30. An enquiry was also conducted against respondent No. 4 and the allegations were found false; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no 3 case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. The enquiry report which is supplied by respondent No. 4 during the course of arguments is taken on record. d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant