€f’1a6 (I, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR__(C.G) w.P.(S)No. W$g OF 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PETITIONERS /":1. Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, aged about 54 years, S/o Jainarayan Prasad Awasthi, Peon, Government Higher Secondary School Korba, Disti. Korba(C.G.) 2. / Dashrath Lal Jaiswal, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Bodhansai Jaiswal, Peon, Block Education 0ffice, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan. Mantralaya, Ralpur (C.G.) /2. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal / Welfare, Korba (C.G.) 34/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1485 of 2011 PETITIONERS : Yogesh Kumar Awasthi & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Bharat Dembra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. Present: ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18 day of March, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 3 to issue an order of promotion to the petitioners as per letter dated 08.12.2009 forthwith with all benefits w.e.f. 10.07.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the name of the petitioners were leit from the promotion list therefore they moved a representation before the respondent No. 3 on 09.10.2009 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, the petitioners, through their counsel, also issued a legal notice on 09.11.2009 (Annexure P/2). Shri Dembra further submits that in response to the above legal notice, the respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure P/_3) admitted the fact that the petitioners are entitled for promotion w.e.f 10.07.208. It was further stated that after the period of the model code of conduct was over, the promotion order would be issued. Thereafter, the petitioners have again made a representation to the respondent authorities, but their cases have not been considered till date. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the representation flled by the petitioner No. l, dated nil, it is not clear asto whether the same was ever filed as it does not bear any acknowledgement of the office. Further, the petitioner No. 1 has tiled a representation on 25.01.2011 (Annexure P/5) after the communication of the respondent No. 3. The petitioners ought. to have waited for a reasonable time to enable the respondents to take decision on their representation as law in this regard is well settled that a statutory representation or appeal has to be decided within a reasonable time i.e. within 3 to 6 months. (See: S.S.Rathore v. State ofMadhya Pradeshl ). Further, the petitioners have also not established that there is any legal right, which has accrued to them and there is infringement of legal right, therefore, a writ/direction may be issued. In view of the foregoing, the petition being bereft of merit, is dismissed. ‘ Sd/i SATISH K. ANGNH—IORI Judge r""‘“ Amit ‘ (1989) 4 scc 582