^? .^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURtC.G.l te~>')E-n) ?ETi7^AA(MKC.CIVIL.CA^No. <-) H /2Qi APPLICANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ 'l. 's^ 2. -. c.- -<>••" <?<•" .A- •-3- '*->• -^. ?1 jCP' e ^^''^(3.^'y .<;QV' c^' <\^>""'' ^^ <¥- 4. Manaharan Lal Dewangan, S/o. Shri Bhuwan Lal Dewangan, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Village & P.0. Ganiyari, District Bilaspur (CG) VE R S US State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Bhawan, Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Director, Higher Education, Raipur & Bastar Division, Raipur (C.G) Principal, Govt. College, Lalbahadur Nagar, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW/MODIFICATION/CLARIFICATION BY RECALLING ORDER DATED 27.07.2006 PASSED IN W.P.fSI N0. 3427/2005 BY HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.K. AGNIHOTRI HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BJLASPUR Review Petition No. 04 of^CQZ Applicant/Petitioner Mandiaran Lal Dewangon Versus State of Chhattisgarh <S others Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnihoW. Pwsent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. OR&ER (Passed on 19th Day of January, The foftowing order of the Court was passed by Satish K. <4gnihotri, J. 1. This is an application for review/modification/clarification of order dated 27.7.2006 passed in W.P.(5) No. 3427/2005 to the extent that a time-limit be fixed for the reapondents to consider the case of the petitioner. W.P.(5) No. 3427/2005 was dismissed on the ground thgt the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower bivision Ctepk, temporarily, for a period of 89 days and as such the petitioner has no right to tiie post and petitioner cannot be granted relief of reinstatement/regularization in service. 2. In view of the facts that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with taw and dehors the constitutional scheme of the 3. empioyment. TTie petitioner was 9ranted liberty to make appropriate representation. The petitioner has come to this Court for p •' '"^w3t''S'SSff3vts' prescribing stiputated time, which cannot be done since petitioner has no right to the post. 4. Thus, +he appliwition is accordmgly dismissed. No order <xs to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^jbhash