IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRn- PETITION (S\ N0. S0.9 6 QF 2010 PETITIONER ^ \ ^'..••-"^••""'^ ^••' :;.•••' .-:^ •'/ ^y^6 l6'~ , ..-•'' ^ RESPQNDENTS ; 1: 2. 3; Kamlakant Tiwari Son of Late Ramratan Tiwari, aged about 40 years, Resident of House No. 33, • Forest Colony, Raigarh Road .«»Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Managing Director (Director General of Forest), Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.). The General Manager (Conservator of Forest), Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Bilaspur (C.G.). ^The Managing Director (Divisional Forest Officer), District Union Laghu Vanopaj, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G-). <£=^y Smt. Manjula Khare, Assistant Grade-III, Office of District Union, Laghu Vanopaj, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 6. Smt. Ratna Chopkar, Assistant Grade-III, Office of Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G-). y" 7. Madhukant Soni, Assistant Grade- III, District Union^ Laghu Vanopaj East, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OFINDIA Ul *in$'ira»*ir<»> ~s^ •-imw^, 'a^wi'a, ^viw^ ^...^^.m:.^l^, 311^1 'q^r (•jqf^ni,*?) 311^1 qil ft-fi'* TTSff SH^T sft*ifq> SWKtR ^^cT S^8 SB •.HonVis Shri Maninura Mohan 01-07.2010 Shri V.K.Pandey, counsel forthi Shri Chandr^h Shrivastava, Ps on aavance copy. The grjev'arice of the petuiorieF triey were workiny as daiiy wage emp of rvtesseriyer vide 22/01/2008 (Aninexiure feyuiarised as Assrstarit (jfaue-ili as viue Miinexure r'rz. it is argueu inat been created and the respondents petitioners for reyuJarisation on the pos THe aToresaiO posi Tor reciuitmeni tj^ fespondents were under an obiigatiorii ^ji'aae-iii 'vVniie reyuiarising Tnem viije were not avaiiabie, the petitionere oug of Asslstant Grade-ill is created and tll the post through uirect recruitrnenf by | ine resporicienis. On the other hand, subi'nission that when the petiiioners were rsgi^ 22/G1/2GOS, another order dated 22/1 wHicri some oiher ciaiiy wage eiTipEoye^ Mowever, thu pelitlonefs dld not r^ feyulaflsation as iviessenger without Gannot raise tueir eiuevance at tHss sta^ 'bllfyjl-i 1|t<df 4 fest <RltSK ^? affipT aii^r ShFJvasiava. >i. i peiiiioner. inei Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 s, as set out in this peiition is that whiie oyees, they were reguiarised on thc post P/3), whereas they w'ere entilied to be 'econriniendatioii to that effect was raade now the post of Assistant Grade-iii have Insts'ad of •conslueriny the ca^e of the it of Assistarft Grade-iii have tiirovvn open isuang auvertisernent. n ;s siiDmitteei itEa? to reyEuiarlse the petltioriers as Assistant arder dated 22/01/2008 and if such posis u to be reguiarised as and when the post e respondents have no authoriry to fili up ^suipfM adv'8rtis<ement as is bein?,' done by of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is iarised as fViessenger v|ue order dated Ji/2008 (Annexure P/4) vvas issuea by s were regularised as Assistant Grade-itl. ise any guev'Quce arid accepted their ny oujecTion. iriereTore; peuuoners novv ,-5am*p»irei-,B?T-Ti?rr.T —f'S/147—2/2010 —1,00,000. •B 4- ^.aa'Ssj,^ CK,'^ k^ •4-:: wHwm»ii<»» 3~er '*ii<ii<iq, ytilyis, fsfdl^l^.!. .U..^:l.^..-...3.^1^. •ffl200 sn^T ^ra^ (^fg^*f) sii^wt^'ii'* ^SSFT ^f^f sh*(N> naw ^fei aitw ? The petEtioners were wbrkiiTg b view of certaln recommendations, th order dated 22/01/2008. At this sta^e regularisaiion on the post of Asslstai oroer uated 22/01/2008 (Ann^xure enipioyees were reguiauseci as ftssisipni proceeded to uil up n^w sanctioneQ ^osts 01 Assistant Grade-llt by proce^ of ^2/4) by which soiTie of the daiSy wa9e nssisieni int Grade-ill. The respondents have now sefection. it is weli setfiSu that ti reyularEsatioii unless seiectyd by' a r@9 il is weii seiueG inai m view OT cas^ of Sccrctciry, State of tate of Kam^ilakg others (20GS) 4 SCC 1 , Governmen Brahmananuam & others (2008) Dayanand and others (2008) 10 feyuiarisaTiOH ayainsi ine posi OT ^ssi^ in this view of the rnatter, i do| reguSarlsation against the post of AssE| to be uisrrtissed, the sarne is accorQin^ <?>l<4l<"?<Dl 'lTra?if "^f fe^ ^f^R^K ^gffiiHSii^r > daTTywafle empioyees and iafcruTi, in 'y vv'ere re9ui3nsea as fviessengyr v'ioe petitloners diu not raise ariy ci'dirri for f Grade-ill. They uid not chaiienge the uaiEy wgiQe empioy'ee cannoi Ciain'i -^ -^t^^A:^, jiar process 01 seteciEon. 'he deGislons ofthe Supfeme Court in the and others v. Uma Devl f3i ani ^S fi SCC 241 a £~.i?^t?^ it Ai- syi; of Andhrd Pradcsh &nu others v. K. 241 1, the petitloner is rsot entitied to cl^irri 'ani ^raoe-itf. not find any merif in petitioner^s ciaim of .tant Grade-iii. The petition therefore has ly clismissed. Maiuadra ^anShrivastava Judge MKI'Ofl sNtT gCTIsST, irupnipiw —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000. +