INTHEHON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHJIATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P.(S) No. ^iO^ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^^:,^(y-- ' ..v^-""'....-- R.S. Gajendra, S/o. Late Shri R.D. Gajendra, aged about 59 years, presently posted as S.D.0. (E/M) Light Machinery, Tube and Gate Sub- Division, Kanker, (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Departraent of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Shihawa Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Dam Project, Raipur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (E/M), CADA Division, Rudri, Dharatari, (C.G.) 5. Shri J.K. Jain, Sub-Engineer, Office of Sub Divisional Officer (E/M), CADA, Sub Division, Rudri, Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. 1>-" 4. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPBR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITIKKER DIWAKER W.P.i'Si.WO. 6106/2011 R.S.Gajendra RESPONDENTS yersus State of C.G. 85 Others Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy.A.G. for the State. WRIT PBTITIOH UNDBR ARTICI.E 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (14.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though he is senior to resp. No.5 but yet the charge of SDO, CADA Sub division Rudri, Dhamtari has been given to resp, No.5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the latest instructions of the State Govemment the charge should have been given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. State counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim his posting as matter of right and it is for the State Oovemment to post the person against a particular post. He however submits that let the petitioner make a representation to resp. No.2 i.e. Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department and in tum the State authority would pass appropriate order. The petition is disoosed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the resp. No.2 and in tum it is expected from the the resp. No.2 to pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that this eourt has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance witb law. ,—_—__ Sd/- Pritiiiker Diwaker