^ * iA^1^ "' & 11S H3BH COEISr ®FiHroaS&'CUKE AT ,g%BALF0Rj M.S. WRTE EETITION N0^1 5- "'8 AQP 2000. PETITIOHER tiS C.R. Bhrav S/o Shri A.R. Shruv, Aged about 55 years, I^/o Balpat Sagar 8&rd Jagdalptir Dlstrict, BASTAR Jg»g< Em'S-'Q S RESE8HSE»2'S SSt 1- Stateof Madhya Pradeslt, througb s Zhe seeretary, local Sslf Admiaistration Govt.'of M.P. BHOPAL 2- The Director, Local Self AdBtinistration Sov-fc. o£ M.P. BB3PAL 3- Ihe Bepaty Birector, Local Self Admi.nlstratlon K&XEOE : 4- The Chief Itonicipal officer, Minicipal Couacll ?A<SBA£rea M.P. WRIT' IETI'BIOH •ETNBEB • ART3EUS 226/227 OF SHE eoHSTaWrxsH or INBIA. s^-""' ^ mGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER VVRITPETmONNo. 4222 of2000 C.R.Dhruv. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofMadhya Pradesh& Others. WRIT PETITION L-NDER ARTECLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer forthe State. Shri B.D.Gum andShri B.L.Sahu, Advocate for Shri A.S.Kachhahwa, Advocate forthe respondent No. 4. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofApril, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks promotion to the post of Qffice Superintendent 'w.e.f. 18.6.1991, on the ground that the Selection Comnrittee has recommended fais name to the State Govemment for promotionto the above stated post. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subinits that despite the recommendation, the State Goveniment has not taken any stand either by approving or rejecting the reconmiendation of the Selection Committee to promote the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent. 3. Qn the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of CUef Municipal QfEcer, by order dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure R;'4-2). Thus, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. 4. It is indisputable that the post of Chief Mimicipal Qfficer is a Mgher post to that of Ofiice Superintendent Even otherwise, no ,,»—fe ^''^ SSt^ s.. 'lk ^v- :S^'.{^!S^^^3iv' 6. 7. right has accrued in favour ofthe petitioner for promoting him on the basis of recommendation made bv the Selection Committee. A recommendation is a simple advice vrfiich is not binding on the State Govemment till the same is approved and acted upon by the State Govemment. Thus, it does not create any right in favoiu- of a candidate. Accordingly, the claim'ofthe petitioner for promotion on the post of Qf-fice Superintendeirt vi.e.f. 18.06.1991 i.e. the date of recommendation, is unsustainable and the petitioner cannot be granted the said relief, as subsequently, he has been promoted to the post of Chief Municipal Qfficer, which admittedly is a higher posttothat ofQBice Superintendent. In view ofthe foregoing, the writ petition, being devoid ofmerit, is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotri. Judge n'ss Amit