!iNGlE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUERE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P. N0. ^ / ^- 12005 PETITIONER /: Ramesh KumarBhimte S/o—Shri N.L.Bhimte, aged about 51 years, ../ ; . _ ' ...••'' .^' Occupation- Draftsman (civil) at office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division (minor) Champa, R/o- Magarpara Ambdekar Nagar Bilaspur, (C.G.) ^ 'y~^^ ;^' ?<0- ^••" VERSUS RESPONDENTS -^l. c^•^ </! .<• 'o f^/^-.^ '^, ii3 • M.AWY. i [•A (-•(;-; 8;9<? ^ ^s^ •?-^&,.^..^'°''/ ''•Cht- ^2. ^,4. ^. The State of C.G Through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mantrlaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) The Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mantrlaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) The Engineer in Chief, Department ofWater Resources, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Engineer, Department of water resources, Hasdeo- Bango, Bilaspur (C.G.) Superintendent Engineer, Department of water resources, Hasdeo- Bango, Bilaspur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Department of water resources, Division- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) C. D. Mankar, Assistant Engineer, (Draftsman) Office of Executive Engineer, Mogra Project, Water resources Division Chowki, Had office-. Dongargaon ©— WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. J—OAOTTnil AD FIP TUP DFTmrtNFR. XI-HC-78 *TWMr St»*<lth 3^''<ll<llc|t|, (9Tf1«'|6, (sldiyy qf^ ..^.^. .%.. &. J[.^h |^2(200 311^1 tiaqi (^cli^sl^liT) 3n^T qirf^riq; Bair3n^?TsbKi»h ?T(TTWHf?tT3I7^T •»>i<iFci'i|1-ftiiitiTfffe'<il <Rf'Ki< ^sri^TR'sn^r 19.6. Depufy Shri R.K. Kesharwani, couhs Shri Satish Gupta, respondents No.1 to 6. Heard both the counsel. By this writ petition, the pi correctness of the promotion order petitioner as a General Category Mankar, SC candidate, who is junic based on the seniority list Annexui put in the General Category wh< ^lt^0..'- therefore, he has/questioned the !l for the petitioner. Govt. Advocate for the State/ ^titioner has questioned tegality and ^nnexure-P/1 whereby considering the t;andidate, respondent No.7 Mr. C.D. |ir to the petitioner has been promoted i-P/2 wherein the petitioner has been ^reas, the petitioner belongs to SC, |orrectness of seniority list Annexure- P/2 also. Return has been filed on be( this fact has not been denied. Th^ the seniority list was published in tt) and the petitioner has not raf representation, therefore, the fault Learned counse! for the pef Court towards the list dated 1-3-20( in which the petitioner's name shown as SC candidate, submittecj petitioner has been shown as Gene|i Shri Gupta replied that if the| respondente shall definitely consid^ in accordance with law. |ialf of respondents No.1 to 6 in which main objection of respondents is that )e year 2000 and 2004 (Annexure-P/2) |sed any objection or made any c|oes not lie with respondents. :itioner while drawing attention of the )3 sent by the office of Chief Engineer aftpears at S.No.36 and he has been that due to typographical mistake the rai Category Candidate.^* -fi^. A^l'f '2- 1 petitioner makes a representation, the |r the case and pass appropriate order < ^LA. XI-HC-78 S^'-WTRTO', »T(1u'l6, Rdiyy *ll*lWl sh*ll<h ^ 200 Sii^i'i Matt> ('i?lt^'!"<'T) sn^r^rfe-iN? iraT31T^rstiH asn.'e STgiWHfsffsn^T ^ En^ineer Having heard learned counsjei fhe pleadings of parties, it is admij category and til! 1-3-2003 he wa^ prepared by the oifice of Chief P/2 prepared in the year 2004, ali as generai category candidate arf name was not considered for prom^ considering the petitioner as gener^ which was for SC candidate, agairf C.D. Mankar who was junior to thi promoted to the post of Assistant Et^ In the cireumstances, points ] the respondents have to rectiiy Annexure-P/2. Accordingly, the| respondents are directed to rectif^ petitioner in the seniority iist an^ petitioner for promotion to the within a period of 3 months from Cost is made easy. Parties are entitled for certifiejd th* tod|ay *wF<-i<fl-< ii*«iT^'fS<^)'<Riwi< ^iSrf^ITSTI^T for the parties and having perused ited that the petitioner belongs to SC shown as SC candidate in the list ', however, in the list Annexure- tf a sudden, the petitioner was shown id on account of that the petitioner's )tion to the post of Assistant Engineer [I category candidate and the vacancy Ist that vacancy respondent No.7 Mr. ' petitioner has been considered and igineer. raised by the petitioner is correct and mistake crept-in in the seniority iist writ petition is ailowed and the the mistake regarding caste of the thereafter to consid'sr case of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer copy of this order. 1 /e ?r) iry Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge