111CTI (t»*IIC|» ~3^r ^i^i<n^, ^Ti1<ri4i<$, [®i<ni<wil4< ^1^3....±15.^.. Wl 200 % 3ll^T '<ra^r (^srf3q^sT) 3TT^T ^PT Rl^Jcb WT 3TT^?T si»*iw ITRiTW^f^f ^n^T PETITIONER Tilak C yeai's, presenti Pat Pro- Kabirdh v RESPONDENTS 1. State of Secretan (CG) 2. State of Secretan 3. The Eni Resourcc 4. The EII! Resource 5. Union ( Ministrv Market, Writ Petition under Articlt S.B. Hon?ble Shri Dhirendri Mishra, J. 14-10-2008 Shii Vipin Tiwari, couns Shri JA Lohaiii, counse] By thls petition under of India., the petitioner h< 22.3.2001 (Armexure P/1) iss of the State of MP, when <ar»i<4(<i<i1i'Wl^f ^f felst <R»i^i< '^^iRm^ff^T |haiid Bhagadkar, aged about 50 t»on of Slit'i Modk^'-aji Bhagadkai-, ^T workuig as Sub Engineer, Sutiya [ect division Sahapur, Lohara^ Distt ^ni (CG) ^rsus Chhattisgarh, through, the Chief ^ Dau Kalyan Suigh Bhawan^ Ralptu' |Madhya Pradesh through the Chief \, Ballabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) ^ineer m Chief, Deptt of Water |s, Raipur (CG) ^ineer m Chief, Deptt of Water |s, Bhopal (MP) ^f India, thi'ough the' Secretar\7, ^f Pcrsonnel, Public Grievance^ Khaii ^ew Delhi. 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India |el for tiie petitioner. for respondent No. 5/UOI. ^rticle 226/227 of the Constitution ^.s mipugned the Cu'cular dated ued by the State Reorgaiiization Cell ;by principles/procedure for final ?I^€^T^T ^uii^, <wi^iici —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. ^^^^^ ,?-<"\ ^^,'—^ ^ 3TI^T -^T R;^jcb WT 3TT^T St»*lict> IIICTI a»*ii<i> ^-5E[ ^ll^ld^, ^Ti1<-|^|<o, [®l<ni<rl^< , k/A^^ t/7S'3. @ W^ 200'6 ^T^?T T^r (<icii^<i4) ^nw^ft^ allocation of the State emplo) the State of Cl-ihattisgarh, ha| Qrievance of ti-ie petitic) for the State of MP and (Annexure P/3) in this regarcj not considered. In these prayed for setting aside tiie (Annexm-e P/1) in allocation ^ Froni perusal of ti.ie wrij therewith, it is observed th| document regai'dmg fuial allc| Chhattisgarh. Challenge is m| to be followed for allocation of MP to State of CG vide Ami on 22.3.2001, on the basis For the aforesaid reasc been filed after more fhan s cause of action/ if any, aro^ dismissed on the ground of miLd is accordingly, dismissed cM<i(<ri<fli 'Hl^if ^f 1^T^ <Pn^i< '^^ffiFT^n^T /ees working m the State of M.P. to »beennotified. ner is that he had given his option addressed several representations [, however, his representations were circunistances, the petitioner has prmciples and procedures followed »fservices to fhe State of MP. L petition or the docunients annexed it the petitioner has not filed any cation of Ms services to the State of ide to the prmciples and.procedures )f sei-vices of the employees of Statet lexure P/1, which were duly notified of decisions of^llie State Advisor\7 Committee, tliat too, after a l^pse of more than seven years. ?1J^7T ^T g^TTOT, <t^i^tl<=l —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. ns, tlie mstant petition, which has sven years from the date on which •e to the petitioner, deserves to be delay, at the admission stage itsetf Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^