^ ^' c JfV9a(.- W^NO: ^4 orzsoe 3S.KW PETmONER Atroz Haqtfe Agedabout20years, S/o Saidul Haque, Resfdentof0trtte:856ff ^~ • Tl^/^/ • ^di ^^ • t b ^/ r ^a^ bi ii ^^ < ^..-^'^" /' Construction Colony, ^•yy..-•""" Dist.Bilaspur(CG)" .*• ^s^y _**' €^-~/'\ .** /\.^c\SI-'- ^N$ ^'^< x'^ RESPONDENT Versus 1. Union of tndia, Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bnaspur 2. Chief Personnet Officer, South East Central Railway Bilaspur / VCTEIT PETtTtON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTtON OFtNWA XI-HC-22 's's? -!ii«i<fl<<^9fll'y'is,ftqi'ay *<IHMT aitllch ST^T Traqp ^ , i' . uo .p-i^ci. 2-^°A>/0 fc 100 •^ Iq^ST" sn^i^T ft-ii'ti sn^i ^-1 •9(^d 311^1 TOIIW ^lftB c^f'£li<n'4ii *4!^<yil* ^ r^'^1 <f<»l<-dl< ^aipgiiaiRCT r Shri 6ary None for South Esst Centra! .P/SECR/Gr-D/01/05, invi] specified <5roup - D of 5 y, counsel for'the petitioner. y M.(W.)P.No.l952/2006 for ad-interim issued an employment notice lications for filling up posts in ECR with a caution that candidates submitting more than onea|^p!ication wi!S not be considered; even if :ted inadvertently, he/'she wil! not be 1*1 t "ment and whel' •e detected at a later.stage wiil be liable service. Admittedly, the petiti^ner submitted more than one app!ication and as a resuit thereof, hisdjiplication was rejected. ned counsei Tor [l'he petitioner contended that simiiarly given admif cards; therefore, petitioner app^ar in the examination. If any person by pla)|ing mischief was successful in obtaining admit car-d, that cannot be ^nade a basis for'issuaice of admit card to others or to aHow them 1|' XI-HC-22 Sfl^T^iT f<-»*3n^i ^HW^f^ff ^ T 't{WW% aTll-H'IS, MMKI^ <t)i£i[ci4!TT'qp^ff -^ -f^r^ <raf^.i< ^73Tpgiran^[ padma eiigibie for appearing in th^ ^examination in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the c^uthority in their employment hotice. Ths petitioner's app|ication has been rejected by the respondents in conformity' wi'tji the employmentnotice issued by them. Therefore, he has no legal| examination or to obtain ad| right to claim for appearing in the Tiit card on the p!ea that some other simitarly situated persons hav^ been given admit cards. I am of the opinion thg^t this petition dessrves to be dismissed summarilyand'isaccordingly<|ismissed., . In the light of above] order, IA Nos.5094/2006, 5095/2006 and M.(W.)P.No.l952/2006 s^ond disposed of| ScV- 1; V.K.Shrivastava Judge [T^^fe^