HIGH CQDRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition (S) No. 366 of2WS : Rupendra Kumar Paragniha, S/o Shri Dhurve Kumar Parganiha, aged about 38 years, R/o Village & Post Gudheli Via Naiidini, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS : 1. State of Clriiattisgarh Ihrougli the Secretary, Department of Co-operative, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipiir (CG). 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur (CG). 3. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Duri 4. Jila Sahakari Keiidriya Bank Maryadit Durg, C.G. fhrough the Chainnan. 5. Gram Gudheli Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, tlirough the Chai-mian, Registration No. 85 Village Gudheli, Tehsil Beria, District Durg (CG). 6. Birendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Amarsingh Sahu, aged aboiit 21 years, R/o village & Pogt Gudheli, Tehsi! Berla, District Durg (CG). (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Sfari P.M. SIirivas, Advocate for the petitioiier. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. "'iKSSv^ (Passed ors 06 ofFebruary, 2008) !. The petitioner, beiag aggrieved by non selection on the post of Computer Operator in the ofBce ofrespondent No. 5, filed this petition solely 011 the yound that the experieiiee ofthe petitioner has not been coiisidered iii the selection process. 2. Tlie petitioner has filed a select list dated 14.09.2007 (Annexure P/l) prepared pn the basis ofthe marks obtained by the caiididates, issued by the respondent No. 5. Shri Birendra Kumar (respondent No. 6) has obtained 71 marks witliout there beiiig aiiy marks for experience as haviiig no experience and the petitioner after havmg been awarded 10 marks for experience, has got 68 marks. Since there was oiily oiie post available K' s agaiiist which the respondent No. 6 was appointed as he has obtaiiied 71 marks i.e. more tlian the marks obtained by the petitioner. 3. There seems to be no UTegularities iii the selection process. Tlie selection process appears to be transparent. 4. Having heard leamed couiisel appeariiig for the petitioner and penised tlie pleadings aiid records appended thereto, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant ofany reliefiii tliis petitioiF'as the respondent No. 6 was selected on the basis of marks obtained bv him which was more than the pettfioner. 5. Tliis petitio" is devoid ofmerit and 's accordingSy disnussed sunmiarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Sahu