^^gat^*3&^ .^^ :-HC-22 3^T^T f^ri^ST^T 9t)^ich ^Ra ~s^ ^WW^, ^Ti1<ri4i<o, [^<ni<-iy 3ni^T IR^ ^l^ldl ^^jch-———••••—•——-^F^ 200 fN^T" 3:n^?T'^cTT^R'Hf^Tf Gni^t<n<flTi '^R^ff ^ 'f^st iP^^K '^^Tf^R^TT^F fSinale Bench; Hon'ble Mrl. Justice Dhirendra Mishra) W.P. [s] No.6358/2008 (Petition U/A 22^ PETETCONER Gendrai^ Kulmitra; S/o Shri Ramswaroop Kulmitrd Vs RESPONbENTS of Constitution of India) , Aged about42 yers, R/o Patwari Halka No.28, ^eepat Tohsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (c.e.) 1. Stat|e of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secrletary, b.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur CG 2. Chiet Election Officer, State Election nission, Raipur C.6. etary, Department of Law, D.K.S. fan, Raipur, CG etary, Department of General inistration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG etary, Department of Revenue, b.K.S. lan, Raipur, C&. 'ict Collector, Bilaspur, Bilaspur (CQ) bivisional Officer (Revenue), bistrict pur (G.G.) ;ildar, Tahsil Masturi, bistrict Bilaspur Com< 3. Sec4 Bhavt 4. Secrl Admli 5. Secrt Bha^ 6. Dist^ 7. Sub| . Bila^i 8. Tahj (CG)| 9. Ash^k Jaiswal, Patwari, Through Tahsildar, Masfruri. Present: Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate for the ||)etitioner. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General f^r the State. Mr. O.P. Sahu <& Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Adv<|)cate for the Caveator/respondent No.9. 12.12.2008 ^ /S!%^ ? '^ia^xTC'22 "% § ^ ,^ •^^,^ '"^^•^" 3TT^T'^T f^ri^^ni^T 9n^icti <if^a ,. ^BIttintt^,/ 'TST ^ii<4id<4, ^-al^Ko, i^<ni^y 3TT^T XRToR ^nwiT^Tra? """"""""""***"**'**^T^ 200 "l^sy" ^TT^T'^TT^R ^tcT By this petition the petitior (Annexure P-6) passed by the Co Tehsildar, Masturi has been dired No.28 to respondent No.9 and to Halka No.30 and also against the o Masturi has complied with the orde Learned counsel for the pe1 the ground that the respondent N( 2 from Patwari Halka No.6, Rev( Revenue Circle Masturi, Sub bistil that where vacancy does not exis1 however, just to accommodate passed disregarding the guidelines| From perusal of the impugt| holding the additional charge of he has been directed to handover been entrusted with the charge circle. Since the petitioner is p4 same tehsil, I am of the opinion th{ In the result, the petitionj dismissed and accordingly, it is dis|' cni<Lif<n<4li TTO^ff ^ feTzt <Fj1^|< ^ 3?rf^TH 3TI^T ^er has impugned the order dated 20.10.2008 jlector, Land Records, Bilaspur whereby the 1|ed to hand over the charge of Patwari Halka bontinue the petitioner as Patwari of Patwari )|"der of Annexure P-7 whereby the Tehsildar, of Annexure P-6. [itioner has impugned the above two orders on .9 was transferred vide order of Annexure P- ^jnue Circle Bilha to Patwari Halka No.28 of ict Seepat. The order spedfically mentions the concerned Patwari shall not be relieved, res|pondent No.9 the impugned orders have been lcontained in the order of Annexure P-2. icd orders it is seen that the petitioner was | Pa|twari Halka No.30 and by the impugned orders t-he charge of Patwari Halka No.28 and he has )f Patwari Halka No.30 of the same revenue jsted within the same revenue circle and the it no interference is called for. has no substance, the same deserves to be nissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- DbirendraMisbra Judge [Tit^ ^Ra^