l^ €-,&gt k"~<,:t%i'~ ^v ^ o o (5/ .\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITIONNO 8^0 OF 2004. PETITIONER ^^ >'''.^'y ^f^ ^y r^ Abdullah Ansari S/o Shekh Mohammad , aged about 30 year Residence of Gram - Seetapur Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) ^: •^6.'. ^'^•' ^ ^^••' VERSES y ^ RESPONDENT 1. 2. State of C.G. Through: Secretary PublicAdministration and Development, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Municipal Corporation. Through: Commissioner Ambikapur(C.G.) 3. Divisional Deputy Director Public Administration and Development, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/2'27 OF THE CONSTITUTfON OF INDIA .i .*.<b 2? XI-HC-78 *11*1WI \3Wl<-«l«IO<4,tff'alx^Ko, Rrtlt-l^ UO-P. »>JKl - S6.0/ 'Z-o'O. SPTT^ W^20Q 3n^^T<inR<rii<h pransn^^TiRwp •"'^ . affI^STq^ (^rf^6!^) S'^TWF^TftcT3TT^^T 23.9.2005 Dr. Shailesh Ahuj^i, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, <pj<iic^<!ni *i>r*KI>V^f KQ^\ \^i\^\\ ^31^T3Ht?[ . Deputy Govt. Advocate for fhe Respoudents No. 1 aad ^. Shri Saurabh Stlanaa, Advocate and Shri S. R. J, Jayaswal, Advocate for f|ie Respondent No.2. Heaid. Leanaed counsel |For fhe petitioner subinits that fhe petitioner beiag haadic^pped appUed for fhe post of Upper |was appoicited ia the Nagarpalika Uchchtar Madhyaaiik ^hala, Anibikapur. The Respondent No.2 resolved on 2.5.20pl (Annexure P/3) ia the meeting of fhe President-ia-Counctl to reconmiend the name of fhe petitioner (haadicapped^ to fhe Govt. for approval of his appoiatment. | Leamed counsel lappearuig for fhe Respondent No.2 subinits tfaat fhe Miuiic^pal Corporation has not received aiiy confirQiation or approv^l froia fhe Respondent No.l, despite its letter seekiag ap^jroval of fhe appoiatnierit of the petitioner. The petitione4 has aanexed fhe docuiaents whereia it is stated fhat fhe iiifo+Diation wifh regard to the appUcation of fhe petitioner dated petitioner beiag one ye^r old. It is not clear as to ia what respect fhe information No.2 had decliaed to giv^ such iiifpraaation. ^6.9.2003could not be given to the ^vas sought and why fhe Respondent .•-^t 24 XI-HC-78 y-oc| r^l^lrt^l, u'alwic, Rowy<< a?.f.^o. ^o/^-^t *11*1WI ^*11<1> 3n^9T<CTR<rii<h ?Pff3IT^$Ta?WP ^^ ^y ^ ^ ^ ^ST^^ (<5srf36R?) W^20Q ?^nW;Hf^T3TI^^T -'2. - thle On 26.4.2004 behalf of fhe Responde|nt li:eariag after a period o^ leamed counsel for the| weeks time to file replyj up today for Ueann^ adjoiimiDlent. However, No, 1 and 3 has no Respondent No. 2 seeki4g the petitioner was not fhe confirmiation niust has been sent to the M about 4 years. In view of fhe fonl are directed to takel mimediately m case fhe date. For fhe reasons stbt order as to costs. Govt. Advocate received notice on No,l aad fhe niatter came up for raore fhaii a year, on 5.9.2005, when [Respondents Nb. 1 aad 3 sought two After two weeks fhe niatter is taken fhe same prayer is niade for leamed coiuisel for the respondents reply as to why fhe letter of fhe confimiation of fhe appointaient of ?sponded till date. It is deenied fhat }iave been granted, because nb reply |unicipal Corporation, Ainbikapiir for 4?l^ic641^44Wc^'^"Rs^ <<^-ci^ ^3rf^H3H^?T ^goiag, fhe Respondents No. 1 aad 3 steps for graatmg confirmation [^onfinaation had uot been graated tiU ^ted above, fhe petition is aUowed. No Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge