BcFQEE. THE.H^iajl.j3.Gn,_CmRT_£F_CHH^TTI§G,]a^ y :DETm;aiSR Kh '^ UNUhI^ 1 Wm; Pstitlsn No'._'-:_'_Oi,2QQ3.''' ;- Raraesh Ghandra Pandey, son of La't-e PsncSit Chandrashekhar Pandey; aged about 65 years, resident of s Hara Mandir Road, Btamhanp ara, AmIaikapuT, Sarci.sj a, District Ssrguj a (Chha'ttisgarh) _V E R S U .S ••^-9- i-1* State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Seceetsry, Public ivorks and Nagriya Nikay, D.KtS. Bhawc3~i, Haipur (Ghhattisgarh) 2. Assistant Director, Tovn ,idmini~ stration and Development of I'A.P. . Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 3. The Deputy Dirsctor, Town AcSrain- istration, BUaspur Division;, J3ilaspi.ir [ Chha'ttlsgarh) . £HH^LlE]Sa_Saia^_22^^22foF_CCTj.,=niuT£ffi^^^^ .^^••" ^* ,^^" '•A'S-M '*A '''•t>y^-—: v^y^§^ —^T-,.-'*T-T '--__£'t. HJGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Slngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 3434 of 2003 Petitioner Respondents Versus Rainesh Chandra Pandey State of Chliattisgarh aiid ofhers. Shri Pankaj Agiawal, counsel for fhe petitioiier. Shri Sushil Dubey, GoveniDieut Advocate for the State. 9\ (10th July, 200< The petitioner was prqruoted to the post of Chief Municipal Ofiicer, Class-D Municipalit}r on adhoc basis from. the post of Revenue Inspector by order dated 11.9.1986. By order.dated 22.12.1990 fhe petitiouer was reverted to the original post of Revenue Inspector. The order of reversion was challenged before the Madhya Pradesh Adiniaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 51,/1991. It appears fhat fhe leEimed Adininistrative Tribunal by order dated 22.12.1990 directed the State Govemiuent to consider the case of fhe petitioner agaJn if duly selected candidates are available. Leamed counsel appearing for tiie petitioiier has not stated even the date of appointment, date of reversion and has not produced oixier passed in O.A. No. 65,/1991 whereby, accordiag to the petitiouer, fhe order of reversion .•3 dated 22.12.1990 was quashed. One order dated 28.7.1994 passed ia O.A. No. 51/1991 was produced which directs the State Goveminent to consider case of flie petitioner. What is tiie preseiit position is not kaown. The petition lacks all fhe relevant inaterials wliich are necessarv for decision ofthe case. For fhe reasons stated above, fhis petition is disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (rj-f