IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl @! ybr;i.^»^ ;i, WRITPETITION N0.^^<' OF 2006 PETITIONER -l\^f" r>^^'wS^ -^s^^'" ?<6st''' \.fc"""" .A^-'" RESPONDENTS </' Madanendra Pratap Singh, ^•^S/o Late Rajendra Pratap '^Xs^ Singh,aged about 51 years, ^' working as In-charge Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur, Dist. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration Development, Mantrataya, Dau Katyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur (surguja) through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ,?I> WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN -NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS: ^sS liH XI-HC-22 ^si •*ll'i|lc)'tl, ®Til'ylis.(stdi^y IIIM! Stitirai ..2?r^ sn^r'gii l^iwsn^i ^^ich fffcr ~ sn^r ^giwt'gf?a ^)l<4l<ri<fll 'RP^f "^ fe^ ^f;f}4^i'< ^i'artSgHsn^i < ShriSanjay K. Agrawai, couns4ifor the petitioner. State/respondent no.1. t no.2. . Shri VivekSharma, P.L., forth4 Shri Sameer Behar, counsei fot Heard. I ' Learned coynsel for the petitio|ner submits that the petitioner was in the year 1983 as Fiije Brigade Superintendent. Vide Annex.P/2 dated 31/1/1995, his (jadre was changed as Revenue Inspector. Learned counsel further s|ubmits that the petitioner is entitled for promotion on the post'of Chief l^unlcipal Officer. Learned counsei aiso submits that the petitioner has fc^eeri officiating on the post of Chief Municipai Officer and though vacancjes do exist in the State of C.G., his case js not heing considered for prorr Learned counsel for the p| Pradesh (Chhattisgarh) State otion. stitionerreferred to the Madhya icipal Service (Executive) Ru!es, F. nf fhp' <i?iiri RMli?'?; t^v<i fh^t r^^rs ufmiant nf ^?sn^Jrt^ ^ made by direct recruitment as well appended shows that by promotion at least 7 years experience on thaj under Rule 13 of the said Ruies,th^ in every year to~consider all ca^ ^s by promotion and the Schedule of C.M.O.s of Class AM.Cs. having t post. It is also pointed out that Committee shali meet atleastonce .es for promotlon and submit'its recommendation to the State Govetnment. After the eonsideration, the Committee shai! draw up a list of p^rsons recommended for promotion and send the same to the State G date of meeting. bvemment within a monfh from the [^^Rrt Xi-HC-22 •ssr^wvpf, wsWfs, ftcii^y ^..e.. *11*<MI ShHR) ^/0-f ''flT. 2W 'f^qST' sn^r^n Vw<h sn^r sh^ich W^T sn^i ^raiWHfttT 2.- chHlci41-1 'RR^T ^ t^St "<f^(^U ^sifigiran^f It is submitted that under Ru consideration. It is also submitted th; years as Revenue Inspector and he promotion. Le^rned counsel for the peti judgment of the Apex Court in the cas vs. K.K. Rov reported in e 5, the petitioner' is entitied for the petitioner has completed ten has not yet been considered for ioner placed reliance upon the s of State of Trioura and others CW 1, and contended that in the said case avenues were not there an< the instant case the avenues are th deprived of t'ne promotion. tt is furthei the said case has heid that' the prci Even when the post was not availabl< the post. It aiso contended that representatlons to the State of M.P. &| & P/9 respectively, butthe same have| The judgment of the Apex Coij is pertinent. In para 6 of the said jj under: they were made available but in ire and the petitioner has been 1 contended that the Apex Court in Imotion is a condition ofservice. ^, the State was directed to create the petitioner has aiso made State of C.G. vide Annexures P/7 not been considered so far. rt inthe case ofK.K. Rov (supra) idgment, the Apex Court held as "S. ff f's nor a case wh^ for.promotton. It is afeo| intended to make ame) poA'cy. The appellan^ meaning of Article 12\ have created prom^ respondent having obligations adi/fnbrafedj Constituffon of india. obligations, the State the respondent hereii^ J~onditions of the offer 4> re there existed an avenue not a case where the State 'idments in fte promotional being a State within the of the ConsStution should Wonal avenues, for the to its. constitutional in Articles 14 & 16 of the Despite its consWutioaal i^annot take a stand ffiiat as accepted the terms and [TF^ ^a^ XI-HC-22 Tig .'^ff''iRra, 'grftwis, faiiK-iy HI*<WI sf><<rai 2-^S-^/<'"v\ fe^ST' an^r^i R-li?b 311^1 ^Hi<t> ^f^a cbl^<4M TTm^ff'^ ^Zt <^1frilJ ^SIRfq 311^1 t nif we/1 that ffiere was cannot resile therefrom\ piinoipies of estoppel c having regard to the c( It is not Union of recommendations mad^ Commission intmduceS Career Promotion in a post if not promotedl years is granted one\ another upon complet meanwhile he had existence of pmmo^ the avenue of promoVon, he K is not a case where the ^ wawer shouk! be appiied i^nstitutional functions of the dispu^d ffiat tf?e .other States in indilp hav'mg regard to the. mad^ 'in this behalf by the Pay the scheme of Assured whereofthe incumbent of within a period of tweSve higher scale of pay and fjon of 24 years if in the n^f been promoted despite Vonai avenues. When tertns nbf the State of Tripura hat We wonder as to wbj sntroduced by the app^t india, and what im^ Promotion being a regard to the pointed out by this Couft hereinbefo're. it was ^; shouid have foilowed the ^ven coiitd not point out that inh-oduced such a scheme. k such a scheme was not illant I'ske ffie other States in ^eded it fmm doing so. conWtion of service and h in the decisions referred to said principles." Learned counsei for the Detiti the petitioner may be given an representation before the compete( which shall be considered on its own Notopposed. Having considered and witho[ merits of the case, in the opinion of| seroed if a direction is given to tl|i representation raising his grievance^ :i|3ner submits that for the present cfpportunity of filing the detailed rt authority of the respondents, hierits in accordance with law. it expressing any opinion on the this Court, ends ofjustice wil! be e petitioner to make a detailed before the competent authorityof [1[f^'^f^ XI-HC-22 an^r'^i (<-li?b 3n§W sn+ii=ti ^II^T ^ H/- 'f ^' •^ + 'Svf \<||.i<|<-|t|, ®Tfl«<IS,'[sl<11'M'i< a<iiwra»<iich W(9 ^-S-^/aC ^ 200 311^1 ¥RITW^f??t 4- the respondents along with a copy o^ a perlod of tifo weeks from today, filed, the competent authority of the r^; on its own merits in accordance prefsrablywithin a period of two morjti?s representation. If the grievance stil the remedyavaiiable atlaw. With the aforesald disposed of. Certified copy as per ruies. the pefition and this order within a|nd on such representation be!n< r^spondents shail decide the. same with law as early as possibie morjti?s frpm the date of receipt of the remains, the petitioner may avail obsetvations, Shis petition stands Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge qii<L!T<n<ili tfl^tci)'^ Fs*<;l {pti<^.i< ^? aiPaT aii^f [^^ ^IO^