AT BILASPUR X IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH w. P. (S) No. é] éO [2008 Ku. Sunita Kesharwani, aged 37 years, D/O Shri Jethu Ram Kesharwani, Assistant Director, Public Relations Office of Public Relations, Bilaspur, (C.G.) Versus Respondents /l State of C.G. Through, Secretary, Public Relations Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur, (C.G.) PETITIONER 2 Secretary, Department of Revenue, S'LJL 64: C'G' D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralay, Rajpur, (C.G.) Secretary, Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSIDIRECTION [ ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. Q1 60 of 2008 PETITIONERS : Ku. Sunita Kesharwani. VERSUS : State of C.G. & Others. RESPONDENTS +4 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on ..... ?..day ofNovember, 2009. Sdl- ‘Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ,w' HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 1 S l N0. 6160 of 2008 PETITIONERS : Ku. Sunita Kesharwani. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of C.G. 8L Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Presént : Shri Rahul Birtharey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No 1 & 2 Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT / (Passed on ..... ?+( day of November, 2009) dent No. 1 to ation to the extent of 1. The petitioner, by this petition seeks a command to the respon grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations, in the department of Public Relations with effect from January, 2007, secondly, the petitioner may be granted compens Rs. 1 lac for monetary loss, pain, shock and suffering. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was duly selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations by the, Respondent No. 3 and accordingly, the recommendation was made to the overnment for appointment. A letter to that effect was also sent to the petitioner on 22nd August, 2005 (Annexure P/l). Despite the recommendation no appointment was ned the services as Naib Tahsildar (Prob) as the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of made by the respondent/Public Service Commission, made. In the meantime, the petitioner joi I G Subordinate Civil Services (Naib Tahsildar) also by the respondent/ Commission on the basis of the same common selection. Despite the recommendation made by the Commission for appointment on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations, no action was taken by the Department of Public Relations for appointment. The petitioner made representations on l“ June, 2007 and 30th July, 2007. It is indisputable that the letter of recommendation by the respondent/Commission was received by the department on the same date, but the petitioner was appointed Vide order dated 30th October, 2007 (Annexure P/7). The petitioner was relieved from the post ofNaib Tahsildar on 213‘ November,2007 (Annexure P/8) and joined the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations on 22“d November, 2007 (Annexure P/9). 3. Shri Rahul Birtharey, learned counsel appearing for'the petitioner submits that on account of unnecessary delay of approximately 10 months on the part of the State/respondents, the petitioner has suffered pecuniary loss, pain and sufferings. Thus, the petitioner may be granted the above stated reliefs. 4. Per contra, Shri P.K.Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Y.C.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would submit that it is admitted fact that there was a delay in passing the order of appointment. However, the petitioner was already in service on the post of Naib Tahsildar (Prob). Therefore, the petitioner has not suffered any financial loss or otherwise. There was no arbitrariness, negligence or willful suppression as delay was inadvertent. The recommendation letter was lost somewhere and a supplementary letter was issued by the Public Service Commission on 9th January, 2007 for considering appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner joined the post of Naib Tahsildar (Pro) on the basis of same selection process and was accordingly getting salary and as such, the petitioner has not suffered any monetary loss. There is no specific prayer to the effect that the. petitioner has suffered loss of seniority and as such, the question of grant of seniority cannot be decided in this petition. The claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation is not well established as the petitioner has not suffered any loss. This was a only a switch over from the post of Naib Tahsildar (Pro) to Assistant Director, Public Relations. Admittedly the petitioner has worked as Naib‘ Tahsildar (Prob) till 21$ November, 2007 and thereafter, she joined on the post of Assistant Director, . Public Relations on the next date i.e. 22nd November, 2007. Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union oflndia & Others], is misplaced as the facts involved in the case are entirely different and has no application to the facts of the case on hand. The petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order aStO COStS‘ 5Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sdl- Amit . . 1 (1999) 6 scc 667