y f .0r \©Gf^SlUGiLEBENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. 111L / 2006 PETITIONER..<v^. \!>^^l"> ;v^<<y/.--'" ..^"" /^?-;"^B1" ...•••'"' '^":e^'v^ ..••'''A»'<^t-y ^•^c^^" ^y^" -y RESPONDENTS ^- Bandhu Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Jugut Ram Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o. Village Kodava, Post Sasaha, Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation Construction Sub Division, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) /' / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFL A^WRIT IN^THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTJOIL QR^RDER^TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER XI-HC-78 *f1^C(Tsh*1|tb TS? "i<l<IIC1<<, SiTnu'16, IsK'lldy .U..K.S..N^.. ^ ,,^ Sll^ifi <4ach (•iql^l'^ff) sn^rwf^iN) craT3TI^?TsbH gTtiTWHfersn^T '»ii<ifci<fl-f*<i>«iTfftetA<Ri«;i< ^3t^IT3n^T 3-7-2006 Mr. Sunil Otwani, counsel fc r the petitioner. Miss Deepali Pandey, Pan^t Lawyer for the Stote/respondents, on advance copy. Heard. The main grievance of the 226/227 of the Constitution of betitioner in this writ petition under Article ^ndic is that hs is workin9 as Amin in the Irrigation Department. As per tl^e ffovernment policy, those Amins who had successfuily compieted ten years' ^enure have to be re9ularized on the post of Amin. Accordin9ly o Committee f Amins was constituted and u!tifflat4'y r'e9ularizing the services of certain Amins the order AnnexureP-7 dated 3r1 petitioner was not considered and )r scrutinizing the service recor-ds of those January, 2003 was passed and the persons junior- to the petitioner have b4en regularized whereas, the case of the deliberately, the case of the petitioner «vas forwarded to the Screening Con^fflittee after the order Annexure P-7 was passed i.e. the case of the petitio^ier was forwarded on 14-1-2003, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not ^onsidered. Learned counsel for the pe-^itioner submits that the petitioner has made several representations to the re^pondents and last reprssentation was made on 18-5-2006 to the Chief Enginee^r vide Annexure P-8, but in spite of the fact that the case of the petitioner w^s forwarded, the same is not being decided. TTierefore, respondent No.2 be d rected to decide the repreaentation of the pstitioner', to whicti learned counsje! appearing for the State/respondents has no objection. ^G-—-, 1 __ >-L-<-V-- XI-HC-78 *11*1CTI Sh*<|tft 3^'^TiTTcW, ®Tfl^'16,Rclltiy ^_ ^. T. S, Ttq7 ..^-•'—^.t.'.iy..^ 200- 3<1^!>1 4sl* (iftt^sK^tT) 3TI^5T W R-IJ+ aqT3f1^TshlI°h Soma ^ ??<iraTBf^a'3T^?T -2--1 Havin9 heard learned couns^ facts and circumstonces of the casj of the case, respondent No.2 'is dit) petitioner in an objective manner, of receipt of a copy of this order representation sent by the petitio then he is ot liber-ty to ask tl^ r-epresentation a9ain and the respondent No.2. With the direction aforesaidl Parties are entitled for certi] <t>i<i[ci<fl-i iii<iTfftec<ft'<Ri<^i< ^sri^ir.a.n^r 1 for the parties and having re9ard to the s^, without expressing any opinion on merits dit|ected to decide the r'epresentation of the wpthin a period of two months from the date in accordance with law. However, if the ^er is not avaiiable with respondent No.2, |e petitioner to furnish a copy of the pep'itioner will be at iiberty to approach the petition stands disposed of. fied copy of this order. Sd/- L.C.Bhado° }udge