n L ^^ ^lTJii^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.(S)No. f^5 2010 Petitioners ^ii u-s. ^ .^ ^^ ^Kf ,/h~ ^^y A'.^^ N^9? //"'^f ..'.*•• Respondents- 1 Mahesh Kumar Joshi aged 25 years, Son of Kripa Ram Joshi, Aadesh Vahak, Vanijya Kar, Durg C.G. Yugal Kishore Yadava aged 23 years Son ofShri Chhannoo Lal Yadava Aadesh Wahak, Vanijya Kar,Durg. Narayan KumarYadava aged 31 years Son ofShri Chhabilal Yadava, Aadeshika Wahak, Durg (C.G.) Ghanaram Verma, aged 27 years, S/o Punaram Aadesh Wahak, Vanijya KarVibhag, Durg. Prahalad Yadava aged 36 years Son of Shri Jeewan Lal Yadava, Aadesh Wahak, Vanijya Kar, Durg. Sanjay Kumar aged 34 years Son of Shri Jeewan Lal Yadava, Aadesh Wahak, Vanijya Kar, Durg. Versus .%g-State Government of Chhattisgarh Vanij'ya Kar Department Ministry, D.K.S.Bhavan, RaipurC.G. The Commissioner, Vanijya Kar Department, State of C.G. RaipurC.G. Sambhagiya UpAayukt, Vanijya Kar, Durg C.G. Writi3etitiorLyncler_Artjcle 226 of the ConstitytiQn^)tlndia for issuance of writ of Mandamys/direction or^ny other writ. ^F^ .0 "'^'g^7 B^Sfli-J' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} N0.1275 OF 2010 PETITIQNERS RESPONDENTS Mahesh Kumar Joshi & Others Versus State Govemment of Chhattisgarh & Othere (Writ petition underArticle 226 oftte Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'bteShri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAD (Passed on this 26th dayof March, 2010) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek to chalienge the legality and validity of the order dated 4-1-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby, the names of the candidates were calied from the empioyment exchange for appointment on the post of Process Server in the Department of Commercial Tax by direct recruitment. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent authorities to extend some relaxation in respect of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitionere are working on the post of Process Server in the respondent Department for the lasttwo years on daily wages basis. However, the respondent authorities without %.. considering the candidature of the petitioner called the names of the candidates from the Employment Exchange for recruiting them on the post of Process Server by way of direct recruitment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled to the said post, as they are havlng sufficient experience, thus the re^ondent authorities may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners also. 4. I have heard tearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioners without applying for the said post and without waiting for the decision of the respondent authorities on the representation of the petitionere, which was filed on 26-2-2010 straightaway, approached this Court. 5. A seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , observed that in every such case only when the appeal or representation provided by law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made, on the expiry of sc< months from the date when the appeat was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue. 6. The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition within a period of about 27 days from making the representations, without giving reasonable time to the authorities to consider their representation and pass the order. The petitioners ought ' (1989)48cc 582 .^'"^••^ //"" ^..\ ^} ur ^s!^.^. V 1l 'SP8' ^J •^rw- ggs 8. Gowri to have waited till decision of their representation; or six months, whatever is earlier. Thus, the present petition cannot be entertained at this stage. For the reasons stated herelnabove, applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and the pendency of the representation of the petitioners for sympathetic consideration, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. In the result, the writ petition Is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- , ^ SatisbK.Agnibotn Judge msF