^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram APPELLANTS (RESPONDENTS) RESPONDENT PETITIONER HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, G.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ AppealNo. 120/2008 1. State of Chharttisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Home & Polfoe Affiairs, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General of Poltee, Police Head Quarter, Raipur 3. The inspector General of Poltee, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent of Pojtee, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus Shankar Lal Rathore, S/o Late Shri Lat Sai Singh, Aged about 57 Years, Constable No.184, Poltoe Line, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Writ Appeal Under Section 2 of the Chhattisaarh Uiah Gourt (Appeal to DivSsion Benchl Act. 2006 Present: Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate Generalwith Shri Kishore Bhaduri, teamed Additional Advocate General for the appellants/State. JUDGMENT (20th June, 2008) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Shri Prashant Mishra, leamed Advocate General with ^iri Kjshore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate Generat for ^w appellants/Stateare heard on I.A. No. 01/2008, an application fbr condonation ofdelayin filingthewrit appeal. 2. On due constderation, we are ssffisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing suffteiient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. t.A. No. 01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Heard on admission. 5. Shri Prashant Mishra, tearned Advocate General submits that as the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 30-04-2007 has only directed the appellants to considerttie respondent's case for grant of second time-bound promotion, in accordance with the retevant circulars, ttie appetlarts were advised not to file any writ appeal against the impugnect ord®". Learned Advocate General further submits that as inspite of e above advice, the appellants insisted on filing a writ appeat against the impugned order, the present writ appeal has been fiied. 6. On due consideratlon of the impugned orcter, we do not find any good ground for interference in this wrrtappeal. 7. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge