^'^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR Writ Petition No. 4344 of2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ramesh Chandm Choudhary; son of Pumshottam Choudhary, aged about 47 years, resident of Chettigirola, Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). VEKSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary', Town Planning and Deveiopment, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Deputy Director, Town Planning and Development, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Chief Mumcipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). 4. Yogeshwar Sahu, Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamimd (Chhattisgarh). (WR1I PETmON UNDER ARI1CLE 226 OF IHE CONSTII Ln'lON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Agmhotri, J.) Present : Shri PankaJ Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 4th day of September, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner is impugning promotion ofthe respondentNo. 4 from the post ofPeon (^RRft) to the post ofAssistant Revenue Inspector ("^Rpra? ^rar^? ft^tSi*) cn the ground that in the order of regularization, the respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 6 and the petitioner was at serialNo. 3, ^ r 3. I,eamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in position to produce or show aiiy mles or regulation indicating that the Pump- coolies are also to be promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. 4. The contention of Shri Agrawal that in the seniority list dated 19.03.1994 (Annexiire P/l) the respondent No. 4 was at serial No. 6 is noticed to be rejected. Pemsal of the order clearly indicates that serial No. 1 to 5 were appointed 011 the post of Pump-coolies and the serial No. 6 i.e. respoiident No^ 4 was appointed as Peon (^q^Ttft). Thus, there is no question of common seniority and placing of respondent No. 4 Peon (^q^Rft) in the seniority llst. In fact^ this is not a seniority list but aii appointment order^ whereunder, tive persons inciuding the petitioner were appointed as Pump-coolies and only respondent No. 4 alone was appointed as Peon (^T<nrit). 5. The petitioner has failed to establish any link or to show any mles which provides that there is a common seniority list. The petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed, No order asto costs. 6. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4694/04, application for grant ofad interim reliefalso stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Saliu