^\ C^i^ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION ( $ ) N07Z OF 2006 PETITIONER: fc A^ <^/^^ .^^>Qr ^^y ^'^y •!iti" 8iE»' ..••' ^••' cS?' / ^^,../-'" ^ES^bNDENTS : 1. ^-2. ^- . .-.--^.B'S" •:y •y«f*zisrtst '^ ff '">^~><< i!'%. ^' . y '%. . '% ^s ^y y ^ 's;, ~£.^ ^- s 'wp^:^^^% Ji^^ c^^f ll^?.-^ a^tv^'t/" ^^ > 7. ^- Bhagwan Das Jharia, S/o S.L. Jharia, Aged about 49 years, Presently posted and working as Assistant Manager, COmmerce and Industries, Directorate of Commerce and Industries, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Personnel Training and Public Grievances, Pension, Khan Market, New Delhi. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). Secretary, Deptt. of General Administation, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Director, Commerce and Industries, Directorate of Commerce and Industries, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Collector, Raipur (CG). Tehsildar, Raipur (CG). z^~ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IECHHATTISGARH AT ILASPUR S R&^^f^N :'^ia^ £S'S,,i'g.~-^fS~a MR. SATiSH WI (; S6 OF Petltioner Rsspondenfe 'ersus Bhaa i Uas Jnana Union of Indis and others Present : Mr. B.D.Guru, counsei for the pstitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate for respondents No.2and4to7. T^a-^srs. !.-d (Passed on 3'° Day of January, 20Q7) The petitioner v/as appointed as industry inspector on 25- 1-1984 and was posted in Jashpur District of the undivsded State of Madhya Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a member of Scheduisd Casts anti as such entitled to benefit of reservation. 2. The petitlonsr, being aggrieveti by ailocation of his ser»'icesto the State of Chhattisgarh, fiied an application bsing O'iginal Application No.4077 of 2002 before the State Admi-iistetive Tribunat at Jaba'ipur. On dissolution of the State Administrative Tribuna!, the said appllcation was transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (Madhys Pradesh) and was i'enumbersd as Writ Petition No.21116 of 2003. The writ petition v/as dlsposed of by order datsd 15-9-2003 (Annexure P-2). The High Court of Judicature at Jabsipur (Madhya Praa'esh), after having sonsidered the case of the petitionsr in dstail, without expresslng any oplnion on merits, hejd that it was for the Central Governinsnt to considsr aliocation of the pstitionsr. Accordingly, a rsprsssntation was made byths petitionerto the Central Govsrnment. The Centra! Governmsnt, by ordsr datsd 25-1-2005 (Annexurs P-3), rsjected ths reprssentation of the pstitioner chalisnging the allocation to the State ofChhattisgarh. ^l^..,^ ^'IP^S^ ?p^^^4'?^t^^-P^ <?-^L^al^/^V^-<nS 'Sfl^^"\. ct/'s" 1 H^ pis?yUUit^i Ueais jUic^ l.'il^ pyiiUUIi S>^c;r\il3y lU^ ^^;ni3 reiief to ths effect that ths rssDondents - authorities bs directed to allocate ths sen/ices of the petitioner to the Stats of Madhya Pradesh, which has slready been considsred by ths High Court of Judlcaturs at !ahs!n]'r ft:,1{frihvfi Prarissh'i [n Writ Potitinn Mn71'S1R nf '70.1'^ nnf.s -js^^J<ri;|u/yi ^iVEiEtUi iy^i 'i civi<sis?;i i^ u i yy s ii. i~'yui'u( s i'yu..^ s i i o yi ^L^'U'B?. 's^i ii/s" y^-L ^L .?4^^?^!i^"^ l^'rt'c" ^r^.i^*^. ^^y^ ^ i ^^ ffii y.'^/*4 -<?6^^4 .^*l&^??f*S^i^al i^^/ .J^1^^^ ^ii^l^ IH©SBfT'sS <.3jS?pUt;S 115^ 3-Q'SH vyHSICiSi'SQ StHQ UeCiUSQ L3y 013^ niyn ^yuii., .r^^i^^p Ul.i's^-, (^iSt •!i>4 e*^i.*<! •!^1 v^^i" .n-.w?'/M'"f'-nty^ '^I^.'\ y^^.?i'4'i^'i;^in •?•-'-?• •'a'"!?; ;/4:'<./s'fr;.^.v^ ;a>is" ^l yiU-^^ f^S^U :»/UUiL ^UUUiU HU.'L yii^siLaiii s.u1^ ya^ui.jyu iv! ^Ui^uiu^i.iun !^i yis same dispute. 4. In ths pressnt petltion, the reiief is the same but the ground raissd herein is different that the petitioner Is nc.t getting bensflt of resen/ation. 5. Bs that as it may, the reiief clslmed by ths petitioner in this pstition, as sought for In the petition before the High Court of r Judicature at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), is ons and the same. Thus, this petitlon is not maintainable on principles of pubiic policy. R hs petition is accordlngly dismissed sumrnarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Gop?J