n HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P (81 No. 6064 of 2007 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS Ku. Maheshwari, d/o Shri Rameshwar AdcUl, aged about 35 years, r/o viUage Telasi, Block Palan, Distt. Raipur (C.G) Vcrsus 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi, w/o Shri Chandrakant aged about 32 years, viUage Telasi Block Palari, District Raipur (C.G) 2 Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Panchayat Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 3 The Upper CoUector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 4 The Collector, Distt. Raipur (C.G) WRIT PETITJON UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Anand Mohan Tiwan, counsel for the petitioner. Ku. Sunita Jain, Paael Lawyer, for fhe State/respondents on advaace copy. C«ALQKDER (10.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. Leamed counsel for the petitioner aiyies fhat the petitioner was a caadidate for appoiatment to the post ofAnganbody Worker aud was having better quaUfications etc., than the respondent no. 1 whereas the respondent no.l was appointed vide order dated 18.7.2006 and the appointment order was uot issued ia favour of the petitioner. He subnuts that ia this regard, a representation was filed before fhe Sub-Divisional Officer vide Annexure P-5 aad a copy was also given to the Upper CoUector, Baloda Bazar but the said represen.tation has not been decided so far. However, leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits that the statutory appeal has ^|^^Si|^ ^^^p^^^^^^^^^^^^^^s^^^^^^^^ff^^^a?^i^® '^'^.K^^^^Ci^^^^^'^.^^KX^^^^g^'s^^g^ ^T-- W.PJS1 No, 6064 of 2007 not been filed by fhe petitioner aud before availiag such remedy, the petitioner has rushed with this petition to the H^h Court. I am not inclined to entertam this petition at fhis stage. The petition is disposed of wifh a direction fhat if so advised, ftie petitioner inay file statutory appeal bcfore the concemed authority and if such aa appeal is filed, it shaU be disposed of by the said aufhority in accordance with ]aw, at the eariiest. If aay adverse order is passed iu fhe appeal the petitioner shall be free to visit this court once again. At fhis stage, leamed coimsel for the petitioner submits that a icasonable time has elapsed froia the date of passing of fhe impugned order, therefore, the niatter of limitation inay come ia ttie way of the petitioner. Needless to say fhat if the reiaedy is available to fhe petitioner for condonation of delay, fhe petitioner would be free to avail that remedy which shall also be dealt wifh in accordaace with law, by the Statutory aufhority. This petition stands finally disposed of wifh. the aforesaid observation at fhe uiotion stage. —_^^-— — Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge