^^&-^^ ^^••:'^^^^20y--"""~ ^••^" ^}-'[-^"' c ^ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.CS) NO. 1^5 iwm-So/Q <!3iljfti ^ RF^sf'H ^?6KV'S«.8« y£.s'iSs;ii Balkrishau Dansena, S/o- Shri S.L. Daasena, Aged about 24 years, R/o- Village & P.O.-Faguram, Tehsil-Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgtr-Champa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER 1. 2. 3. 4. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Department of Co-operative Society, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Janjgir-Champa, Chhatrisgarh. Brauch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. President, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Faguram.RegistrationNo. 73^. . i" a/oZx-nin^l Klwroiu/a ( ?/I^- '3w»j^JY--cAarnft(C-Ci.') Rameshwar Dansena, -' v ^- S/o- Not known to the Petitioner, Age - about 39 years, R/o- Village & P.0. -Faguram, Block-MaUdiarouda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6" Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Branch-Dabhra, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS ''y^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OIL^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 169 OF 2010 Balkrishan Dansena RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri S.L. Kurmi, Advocate for the respondents No.3 & 6. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate fore the respondent No.4. None for the respondent No.5, despite service ofnotice. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 31st day ofMarch, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No.2 to 4 and 6 to permit the petitioner to perform the duty of the post of Samiti Sahayak of Samiti Faguram with financial power pursuant to the order dated 18-11-2009 (Annexure - P/3) thereupon, the petitioner joined the service on 19-11-2009 (Annexure - P/4). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 6-10-2009 (Annexure - P/1) for appointment on the post of Samiti Sahayak, the petitioner along with others made an application. The petitioner was found successful in the selection process. Accordingly, the order of appointment was issued on 18-11-2009 to comply with certain conditions before joining the post. The petitioner having complied with all the conditions stated therein joined the post of Samiti Sahayak of Samiti Faguram on 19-11-2009. The respondent No.3 has accordingly directed to hand over the charge of Samiti Sahayakto the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies has also directed the respondent No.4 to hand.over the financial and other powers of Samiti Sahayak to the petitioner. The respondent No.4 in his returnsubmitted that firstly, the petition should be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as provided under the provisions of Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act and secondly; the appointment of respondent No.5 herein is pending approval. Thus, the petitioner is not being handed over any work including the financial powers. The respondent No.5 has chosen not to appear before the Court, despite service of notice. On perusal of the order dated 26-10-2009 (Annexure - R/1), it is evident that the appointment of the respondent No.5 was not in accordance with law when the petitioner has applied along with other persons and was duly selected in accordance with lawand accordinglyappointment order was passed in his favour thereafter he has joined the post also. There is no reason asto why he should not be given the financial powers. Waiting for approval of some appointment, which has not been done in accordance with law and in accordance with the Gowri constitutional scheme of employment is not at all sustainable. Even otherwise, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the respondent No.4 have also directed the respondent No.4 to take appropriate steps in handing over the financial power and other duties of Samiti Sahayak to the petitioner. The respondent No.4 has not taken any steps and it appears that he has disobeyed the orders passed by the superior officers. Looking from all angles, the respondent No.4 is directed to assign all the charges of Samiti Sahayak to the petitioner, in accordance with law, as he has been duly selected and appointed on the post. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order asto costs. l^ Sd/- i SATISH K. AGNMOTRI 1 Judge