HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 3842 0f2003 PETITIONER 7 : Anil Kumar S/o Shri Laljee‘Bhardwaj, aged about 28 years, Resident 0f Qua1Ter N0. M/109, Urja Nagar, Post Office Gevra Project, S.E.C.L, Korba, District Korba (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhamsgarh Through the Secretaxy, Department of General Adaaqimstration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Buildirig, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) 2. Th6 Coilector, Jashpur, District Jashpur Nagar (CG) 3. The Joint CoHectOr, Jashpur, District Jashpur Nagar(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Rajneesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Farrel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17m day of July, 2008) By this petition. the petitioner seeks appoiritment pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.05.2003 (Annexure P/l) and further, initiation of disciplinary action against the respondent No. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not receive the call letter, thus, he failed to appear in the interview held on 29.08.2003. It is not the ease ofthe petitioner. that the call letter was dispatched in time. xx It is well settled that ifthe call letter has been dispatched in time, receipt of the call letter belatedly may not‘be the ground for quashing the selection process. Even otherwise the petitioner has no right to the post, except consideration. On account of postal delay, it appears, that the petitioner could not appear in the interview. , ll M by W“ Ai this stage, no relief can ba granted to the petitioner as the interview has been held, select list has been published and the persons have already been appointed dve years earlier. The petitioner, even otherwise, has not impleaded other successful candidates who were appointed pursuant to the said advertisement and they would be substantiahy affected if the selection process is quashed and the respondents are directed to interview the petitioner and pass appropriate order. In View of the facts situation of the case, nothing remains for adjudication. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Consequentiy, M(W)P No. 3455 of2003, stands disposed of. - \ Sd/— \ sau'sh K. Asnihotriéif ’ " " Judge