“Wm HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT B!LASPUR Qg: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’b!e Shri Radhe Shyam Shanna, JJ. Writ Appeal No.30112011 Appeaam Ku. Annu Soni, D/o. Shri Manharan V Lai Soni, aged about 26 years, R/o. R.K. Lane; Near Garage, Telipara, Bilaspur. district Bilaspur (CG) Vs. . The following order of the Court was gassed by Sunil Kumar'Sinha, J. Heard. Appellant Annu Soni filed writ petition for the following main relief:- “That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to consider the petitioners application ‘for modification against the vacant post available in Pali Block, District Korba and accordingly 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, DKSr Buiiding‘, " Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ‘ 2. Chief Executive Officer, Ziia Panchayat Korba, District Korba . (CG) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Korba, District Korba (CG) Present: Shri Vinod Deshemukh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance copy. 0 R A L O R D E R (o1 .07201 1 .) for issuance of appointment order in the post of Shiksha Karmi Class—II (SGience Group)." 3. The appellant was selected for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II (Science) and was directed to participate in the counseiing. She contended before the writ Court that during the counseiing she opted for Pali' Biock, District Korba for her posting. According to the appellant, in spite of availability of number of vacancies in Pall Block, respondent authorities asked the appellant to give any other choice for her posting saying that no vacancies were available in Pali Block. Thereafter, the appellant gave her choice for two places in Podi—Uproda Block, out of which she was posed at one place. 4. The respondents have filed return before the writ Court. ln para 2 of the return, the respondents have contended that at the time of counseling of the appellant, entire posts of Pali Block were filled up except Telsara & Deurbhata, which were at remote places. When the appellant was informed about the same at the time of counseling, she refused for Telsara & Deurbhata and opted for two places in Block Pcdi-Uproda. Counseling form of the appellant,duly filled and signed by her, has been filed as Annexure-R- 2/1. 5. The writ Court took the view that the appellant herself opted for a place in Podi-Uprcda and she was sent there on her own written option, therefore, she cannot claim any relief in the above manner. , 6.‘ Shri Vinocl Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant arg’ued that many posts were lying vacant in Pali Block at the time of counseling of the appellant; the appellant was not informed about the availability of the posts at two places in Pali Biock, as alleged by. the respondents in their return 7. Perusai of the records of the writ Court wouid show that after filing of the return’ by the respondents on 4.3.11 as above, the appettant did not ftie any rejoinder to oontrovert the above p!eadings taken by the respondents. in View of the above, the argument of !earned oounse! for the appetiant with regard to giving faise and wrong information at the time of filing of return cannot be accepted at this stage, because their return is duly verified by the concerned authority. After going through the entire records of writ petition and writ appeai, we are of the View that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered in this writ appeai. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is Bini . hereby dismissed summarily. Sdl— Sinha i Sdl~ W ' gr 'KSuril‘ilKumar Judge Radhe Shyam Sharma l Judge