’I"_‘——_/———ii 69/ (Wang; F m WM Eh In‘ the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgéi‘, Bilasgur. WPK 0....%&$§T...2006 g Shrimati Jaya Chandrakar, Aged 38 years, r“ Petitioner .' ”ywife of Chiranjivlal Chandrakar, A: / .3hikchha KarmiVarg-l, R/o Village, Post—HANODA, Tah. & Distt. DURG (C.G.) av“ Versus Resgondents v' 1. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director ofPanchayat, _ State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) / 3. Jila Panchayat, Durg. Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Durg. District Education Officer, Durg (96.) . Collector, Durg (C.G.) V r Q 27 of The Constitution Of India for ‘§’I‘it Petition Under Articles 226/2 ture of MANDAMUS certiorari n the issuance. of WRIT in the 'na direction or directions. Prohibition and for other suitable writ or writs. order or orders, " h W v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR w. P. (s) No. 4785 of 2006 Pe‘l'ifioner' Shrimafi Jaya Chandrakar ‘ Versus Re'spondenfs The Sfa‘te Govt of Chhaffisgarh 6t ofhers Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Jus+ice Sufish K. Agnihowi. Shri Ajay Shrivas'rava, Advoca‘re for fhe Pe‘ri‘rioner. Shri Sufish Gup'ra, Dy. Govt Advoca‘re for- fhe respondenw/S‘fafe. o R D E R (6* september, 2006) 1. Earlier The pefi‘rioner had filed a Wrif pe‘ri'rion being W.P. No. 2625/2004, claiming employmenf on 'I'he post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, on 'l'he ground fha‘i despi'l'e vacancy being available, the pefi'rioner- was no'r appoin‘l'ed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in Chemis'l’ry subject After hearing bo1'h 'rhe par‘l'ies, fhe pe'rifion was allowed by order da'red 30.8.2005 and fhe Direcfor, Panchayaf was direcfed fo accord necessary approval for appoin'ring fhe pefifioner as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in Chemisfry, wifhin a period of 3 weeks from fhe dafe of receip'r of fhis order. In compliance of fhe order dafed 30.8.2005, passed in W.P. No. 2625/2004 fhe approval of fhe Direcfor was granfed on 30.9.2005 (Annexure P/4) for appointmenf of fhe pe‘rifioner on fhe pos'r of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in Chemisfry subject 3. In fhe presenf pefifion, fhe pefifioner claims seniorify in appoinfmen'f over ofher Shiksha Karmi Grade-I who were appointed earlier, on The ground fhaf other similarly si'iuafed employees were uppoin'fed in July, 1998 and aiso for paymenf wh‘h refrospec'l'ive effecf from Jury, 1998. If is fur-Thar prayed 'I'ha'f “the pefHioner's pay be fixed accordingly and fhe responden'rs be direc‘red 1'0 pay consequenfid monetary benefifs wifh inferesf a'r fhe r'afe of 18%. When the pen-timer was appointed after approval on 30.9.2005 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner cannot be granted appointment with retrospective effect. The petitioner may be in the select list prepared in July, 1998, but the seniority or appointment of the petitioner in the service begins from the date of his actual appointment. Even in the case of other employees, who are selected from one list, the service begins from the date of their joining, not from the date of preparation of the list. In the present case, the actual appointment of the petitioner has come into effect from 30.9.2005, may be on the basis of select list, prepared in July, 1998. Thus, the respondents cannot be directed to give appointment to the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of appointment of other Shiksha Knrmi Grade-I, which is contrary to well settled ‘ principle of law. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. ,. . . Sdl- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu