HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BSLASPUR SSNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. CJ W,PJ4o^41^7of2003 PETITjONER Sukui Das, son of Shri Firtu Das, caste Manikpuri, (Panika) aged about 27 years, occupatson Acting Kotwar resident of viiiage - Songuda, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 3. 4. 5. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Secretary; Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Board of Revenue, through : !ts Secretary, Chhattisgarh at Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) Tahsildar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) Saheb Das, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Kheek Das, resident of Songuda, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir ~ Champa (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition under Articte 227 ofthe ConstitutiQnjrf India, Present: Shri A. N. Bhakta, counsei for the petitioner. Shri U. N. S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.1 to4. Shri Sankaip Jayaswal, counsei for the respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14m August, 2007) The petitioner has chaltenged the appointment of respondent ^Ni&.S on the post of Kotwar whereas, according to the petitioner, his father was a Kotwar of the village Panchayat Songuda, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Champa-Janjgir and on his resignation, the petitioner & opposite party No.5 both appiied for the post of Kotwar. The Gram Panchayat has recommended the case of respondent No.5 for the appointment as Kotwar and the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Gram PanchayaS. On the sole ground, the petitioner has iost in the Courts be!ow. The petitEoner has urged before this Court that he has :-''r ~ ', to be given preference over others in case of appointment and the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat is oniy recommendatory in nature. It has been submitted on behalf of the private opposite party No.5 that the preference can only be given if it is found that ail applicants having simitar quaiifications and in the present case the name of the petitioner has not been recommended by the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed. I heard learned counsel for the parties and 1 found that the case of the petitioner has not been considered on merit at all. Accordingly, the order passed by the Courts below and the order passed by respondent no.4 are set aside with a dlrection to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner and opposite party no.5 as in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed. —: Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice kamna