HIGB<3€rtJfiTOF<3IHArF:TISGARHATBILA3SPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIONfS) No.3S99 of2007 Asblam Khan S/o Late Faiyaz Khan, age - 49 yeMs, R/b Police Line, Tahsil - Distt. :,"--l,-'i,:;Bilaspurl\.. • • , _ [C.G.] '•VERSUS : ;- . • " i 1.^ Union of India, Through Seofetary Department ofpersonneland Traiiung, Govt.' ofIndia-NewDenu. ~—~^^ 2. Direetor, Department of personS\and Traimng; Govt. ofIridia.NewDenu. 3. State of Cfahattisgarh, Throu^i - Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur[C.G.] 4. Stafe of M.P., Through : Secretary, Home Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal [SMP] 5. Seeretary, State Reorganization Cell Dept. of Oeneral AdministratioH Govt of M.P., Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal [M.P.] • 6. DirectorofPublic Iilstruction, M.P. Gautam Nagar, Bhopal. 7. Director of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Pension Bara, Raipur [C.G.] 8. Superintendent ofPolice, Distt. - Bilaspur [C.G.] WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF MDIA. Smgle Behch : Hon'ble Justice Shn Satish K, Agnihotn. Present: ; ShriRa.vishVerma, Advbcateferthepetitioner. Shri S.K.Beriwa!, Standmg Counsel for the Union oflndia. Shri8umeshBajaj,AdvocateforfheState. ~ ORDER (Passed on 27a day of June, 2007) 1. Bythis petition filed under Artiele 226 ofthe Coastitution, the petitioner • -: challenges fhe legality and validity of the order dated 23.07.2002 (Annexure P/l) passed _by the Govemment of India, Mmistrv of Personnel, I'ublic'Cjrievances & Pension, ia exercise 6f its power under Section 68 sut) Secfion (2) offhe Madhya Pradesh State Re-orgamzation Act, 2000, wfaereby tKe service of flle petitioner, by •ttis said ordet^ has beenallocatedtothsStateofChhattis^rh. .i.te,. "^»~ tC? 2. TTie petitioner impugns the above order on the ground that the he is a bonafide and permanent resident of District - Uyain, State of Madhya Pradesh so his services should not be allocated to Chhattisgarh. 3. Be that as it may, the Go'Vemment oflndia has exercised its power afler havmg considered all the aspeets by passing fhe order ofallocation. The said order has attained finality. The petitioner has not pointed out any irregularity, illegality, discrunination or unreasonableness, or procedural error inthe impugned order. Thus, no interferenceis warranted. There is no semblance of any right aadbreach ofthe same thereof. Accordiagly, thepetition is dismissed, summarily."' SdA : j Satish^K.Agmliotri | Judge