' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 4717 £2008 PETITKN‘IER : Rajesh Pate}, S/o Late Ramsharan Patei, Aged about 34 years, Instructor C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ' 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretmy, DKS Bhawan: Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG). 2. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Chief Secretary, Valiabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal (MP). 3. Director [Generai of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur (CG). 4. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Personnel Grievances, Khan Market New Dehli. (VVRIT PETHTON UNDER ARTICLE 226 ()F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDXA) (SR: Honible Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) resent z '- Shii Anup Majumdar, Arivocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri 1A. Lohani, Advocate for the respondent N0. 4. QRAL oumrg C (Pascal on 29m day of August, 2908) l. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finaliy. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh was carved out from the then State of Madhya Pradesh on 01.11.2000 pursuant to enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2000 (for short ’the Act, 2000‘). There was a provision of allocation of its personnel between two States. Accordingly the government has constituted a committee for the pmpOSe cation of personnel. P } e petitioum, aer having joind the service in the State of Th ft e Chhattisgarh: made an appiation to the Director General of Police, ic Chhattisgarh; Rpur? for ocation of his service to the State of ai all aéihya radesh on 11.08.2008. e further submits at earlier also he M P H th had made applications, no ocuments support ot‘his submission has d in been produced. It appears that the petitioner has not made a representation to the Central Government or to the State Government. The petiOner relies on a latest circular dated 09.06.2008 (Annexure P/3 ), issued y the State of Chhattisgarh for linal allocation pursuant to letter 08.06.06, issued by the Government oflndia. Be hat as it may, this Court cannot decide the facts with regard to t aocation of the petitioner n eier State. Even otherwise, the ll i th petiioner has not chaenged a order of appointmt except that his epresentation dated 11.08.2008, pending before he rector General ofPolice may be directed to e consideredin accordance with law. b Shr Bhat, ed counsel appearing for the State submits that i ia larne pedi reesentation of the petitioner shall be considered in nng pr accordance wh law on its own merits, preferably Within a period of six it weeks fr the date ot‘receipt ofa copy ofthis orde. om r In view ofthe foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to cos. st Sd/- .Satish K. Agnihotri Jile dg 6 ny it b t ll ny en r t Di