^.^0^°^^^ SINQI A"*""" QLE BBl^. »Aas IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Petition Np. 2^52-S /^ooe Petitioner Makhan Pal, Son of Shri Babu Nandan Pal, 1 Aged about 47 years, Technical Assistant, \ Posted at Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development (Board, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ^ A* Versus iy.-:S/ State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Industries / Gramodyog '•-^? Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. y3. General Manager, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 4. Shri Dilip Hedau, Manager, Chhattisgarh Khadi Gramodyog Board (Handicraft Cell) Raipur, Chhattisgarh. '•&P 'iii."*.^ ' ^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 T5T-<4l<llld'Ll, 9fll<H'is, fa'ni'yy an^T^ii R-li?ti ant^T ^14 ^fifl <' 11KCTI VtiW*^^J?S^^ ^^.........-.....................y....^^ 200 fa^T' sn^i'^gTWfffttf 11.5.2006 Shri Anupaiu Dubey, Advoc^te for fhe petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy.- Govfj.Adv. for.the State. Heard. The petitioner, who is wor^dng as Techiucal Assistant iu the C.G. Handicraflt Development Bo^ttd, Ainbikapur, has preferred this writ petition wifh a prayer to dir^ct fhe respondeuts not to promote respondent No.4 on the post of Qeneral Manager, as fhe enquiry in respect of forged caste certificate High Level Euquiiy Coinmittee. The case of the petitioner Assistant ia C.G, Handicraft De^elopinent Board, Ainbikapur and respondcnt No.4 is posted as M Board (Handicraft CeU), Raipur. respondent No.4 is workiug in th place of posting, On. 10.6.2004 and requested to provide caste Gramudyog Departiaent issued| Udyog/Hath Kar^a, Raipur and officers agaiust whoin an euquiiyl pending. On 23.6.2005 it has[ Haribhiimi that sonie officers art chl^<Tl<ill ^ilfl^ff ^ 'f^^t' <f^l'(^[-(. ^; 3if:(iii sn^r is pending agaiast luin before the is that he is posted as Technical ^n^er iu C.G. Khadi Gramudyog 'he petitiorier as wefl as other staff members has niade a complaiut t^> respondent No.2 to the effect that departaient on fhe basis of foi^ed caste certificate, therefore, he sh|ould be rcnioved fbom the present onc Shri Mahipal Singh Dhurvc, Member Secrctarv wrote a letter 1fc> the Joiat Sccretanr, Govt. of C.O. •ertificates of fhe officers agaiast whoin enquiiy is pending. Qn 22.6.2004 Special Secretary, a letter to the Director, Gram duiected him not to promote the ragardiag forged caste certifieate is been published in Hindi Daily iadulged in forged certiflcate and [TT^^fe^ XI-HC-22 sn^r'gir, f?;ri?73ii^r ^tlN'^ti^I y > -s'si -^ww^, ^w^, feirey TITHMI s»)*<|ch fs ....W.,X::..-fe^>.^ 20ft^ J^'S^S.T' aii^r ^gi^it ^itei 2- iaquiiy is pending ^ainst theii^. promote respoadent No.4 on the zuadue advautage inspite of pj therefore, respondent No.2 be dir^c In the first mstance, fhe p^ that how his legal right is cffectc|d for proinotioh and moreover, it is into'account aB fhe aBegations officer and ttiereafter to consider No such writ can be issued proM| considering any of&cer for devoid of any inerit, as the same is liable to be dismissed and it is Consequenfly; M.(W.)P. also stand dismissed. arid proijaotio <tl''<Icl''il-l iIFRff ^ fe^ <Iait$it ^? srf^riT aii^r . As respondent No.2 is likely to post of Gcneral Manager to proyide indency of iuqiury against hiin, ;ted not to proiuote luin. |;titioner has not been able to show if respondcnt No.4 is considered |for fhe concemed authoritv to lake pei^onal record of the coucemed |fhie promotion of particular officer. liting fhe conipetent authority fiToin jaotiou. Therefore, the petittoa is |acks iu material particulars, sam.e tercbv dismissed. |No. 1893/06 & I.A. No.4943/06 Sd.'- L.C.Bhadoo Judge [^ ^fo^