3w ”W @ Mam ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR r. w.P.(.&.)N0. G®O new” 16m PETITIONER: /Rameshwar Prasad Sahu S/ o Sri Nakul Prasad Sahu, aged about 39 years, Occupation Service, posting as Peon at Collector Election, R/o Village Navapara, Post Puktapuri, Tahsil Pusour, l? District Raigarh (C.G.) " VERSUS RESPONDENTS /,, 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department i i D . K. S. Bhawan Mantralaya k Raipur (C.G .) 2. The Secretary Revenue 81, _ Calamity Management Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) The District Election Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioners most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under : \\‘ wmT PETITION (S) No.6oo OF 2011 PETITIONER Rameshwar Prasad Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Wrk Petition under Article 226 of the Censtitution 6f india) Singie Bench : Hon‘bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present :- Shri Mano} Jaiswai, Advocate for thepetitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduyi: Pane! Lawyer for the State. . (Passed ont ORDER ORAL his 15 day of February, 201 1) Heard Ieamed counse! for the parties. By this petition‘ the petitioner chaiienges the iegaiity and veiidity of the advertisement dated 05/05/2010 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the petittoner has been working since 1996 as peon therefore, he should be considered for appointment and there cannot be direct appointment inviting open apptications from other candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment to the post of peon is by direct recruitment. There is no provision for appointment on provisionailad-hoc empioyees directly without inviting application from the public at large. Shri Bhaduri, teamed Panel Lawyer appearing For the State submits that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner along with other similarly situated employees alone may be considered for appointment, is without any basis and contrary to the ‘oonstitutional provisions. The opportunity should be afforded to all eligible persons in case of direct recruitment. Thus, there is no question of appointing the petitioner with other similarly situated persons only on the post of peon. Be that as it may. havtng examined the facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, l do not nnd any reason to make a direction to the authorities to consider surplus employees/ad-hoc employee! provisionat employees r7rstly, it ts a poiicy decision of the State Government and secondly, no such direction can be issued, which is contrary to the constitutional scheme of employment. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit, is liabte and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/-' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR 3 ‘1 r ,. * g?