c -1(f' J.Nv-: 6 o4-/'94,7 S.B..7 6 Akhilesh Kiiffiar Upa.dhyay ag&d 32 yrs. s/o. iramha Upadhayay occiipatioti - (3)- Domhara , Bloek Bhart p?ir , Distt- Konya .-:...»*•. L".:.L">^S'^ RA?. of ,^'-;;t::..^\^^.)s-" ^o,'--"^-^^ - Iddress • 8S sta!ed ^Gve) ^•^:^^'^\}^ ^ - '. f(c 6 - -'' ^i;h' ^' \- >' VERSUS. :- 1:- St8te of fbr edBcatffiB D.K. S Raipar.. Distt- RaipBr C..G. 2:- Seeretsry for pHiichayat Depa.rtment ( AiitOB&.moys,.bodies )D.K. S. Bawai! Raipiir.distt." RaipBr. C.G. 3~ Dspiity secretary of offics oflioaorable. m m ^^gretarlgt D,K. S. BIiawm .Raipur Distt«Raipur.C.G. 4- 'Colleclor . Koriya. distt- KoriyaC.G. 5:- CliiefExeetttive officer disttpOBcliavat Koriya dis-tt- Koriya C.G, ^^^\. .-ffHwe^,^ '6 ^^ 6:-C'h ief esecytive officer Janapad pyiichayat Bhart por. DISTT- Koriya.C.G. ® HIGH COUFH' OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL/^PUR Writ Petition No. 804 of2004 Petitioner Akhflesh Kumar Upadhayay Versus Respondents State ofChhattisgarh and ofhers Sin^le Bench : Honlale Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnMiotri. Shri Abhay Tiwari, couxisel for the petitioner, Shri Maiush Upadhayay, Paael lawyer for fhe State. ORAL ORDER (5th April, 2006) The followmg order of ftu: Court was ps^sai by Satish K* AgnUiotri, J. According to learaed counsel for fhe petitioner, fhe petitioner was appoiated by order dated 10, 10,1996 on the post of Shiksha Karmis Grade-II aad posted at Higher Secondaiy School^ Doaaihra. The petitioner received the said appoiiitment oider after the prescribed period forpming fhe post ie. 30.4.1997, was over, The petitioner made a representatfon to the respondents to the effect fhat the petitfoner could not be denied appoiataient, when the appoiatDient letter was not rcceived by the petitioner m time, There was no fault of fhe petitioner aad as such the right has accrued iii favour of fhe petitioner by vutue of fhe appoiiitaient letter and fhe same should not be ui&iaged. The petitioner made the reprcsentatioii on 27.10.2000 after a period of 2 Ya years. The rcspondent No. 3 by bas letter dated 28.11.2001 infonxied to the respondents No. 4, 5 aad 6 fhat fhe petitioner coiild not be ap{K)iated on the post, a copy of fhe saine was marked on fhe petitioner also. 6. The petitioner afiter haviag waited for about 2 % years has fited fhis petition on 11.3.2004, praying for quashmg of fhe impugniag letter dated 28.11.2001 (Annexurc P/3). The appoiataients of other candidates were niade way back ia 1997 and fhe petitioner has filed fhe representation after a i^ricxi of 2 % yeara and fhercafter fhis petition was filed agaia after a period of 2 Va years fix>ui fhe date of rejection of fhe reprcsentation. AU ffae posts have been fiiUed up tffl now aad fhe ri^hts of the simflarly situated candidates have been. ciystaIUized. At ffais stage, tihis petition caaiiot be entertaiaed on fhe ground of unexplained mordiaate delay to disturb ffae settted position of fhe ofher simjlarly situate Shiksha Karmis Grade-II, posted at various places. Hence, ffate ^tition is disinissed on fhe ground of mordmate delay, No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu