v.'siSfis #'n^u (S> IN Th-E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL&SHJR WRIT EETITiaiH ( S ) N0.3-^-S OF 2007 rst- gETITIOHER RESPOHDEHTS Vijay Kumar Son of Sri Awan Sai, ajeS. aix>ut 21 years, residenfc of village ; Maheshpur, .Post s Lakshmangarh, Block ; Udaypur, District s Surguja ( C G ) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development D^artment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. -2. The Collector, Ambikapur, District s Surguja ( C.G ) I'C'' ^^^^'1 ^^ .SP^ <;'"'' £'"aw"'siSE-. /"<l^ *"'i^'%, '/ \:^:sss1^ ^ 'i^ / */<'!'Y ^\ I' "ty^fsshfsWY ^'.3. 4. 5. The Commissioner, National Rural Employ- aent Guarantee Scheme, Vikas Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur ( C'G ) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Pancba. Yat, Surgaja, ( Amblka. pur ), Districfc : Surguja — C.G. The Chief Executive Officer, Jaiyad Panchayat, Udaypur, Biock ; tedaypur, Dist rict ; Suiguj a ( C,G ). Rupan Singh, Son of Sfl RaBanand Ram* aged absut 20 years, resident of village : Mabeshpur, post ; Lakshmangarh, Block s Udaypur, Oistrict : Surguja ( C G )^ r ^ '7. Sri Ramanand Rain* SaEpaicb, o^ Village Pancbayat s Manpur, Janpad Panchayat Udaypur, District s Surguja ( C G ). <^ WRIT ffETjTION UHDER &RTICLE 226 / -^ OE TBE CONSTITUTION OF ISDIA FOR IS5UANCE OF frBIT IN THE HATUKE OF MASDAMOS, CERTIORARI, WRIT, DIESCTIOH ... .., ... ETC. r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petjtjoner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.346 OP 2007 Vijay Kumar versus State of Chhattisgarh and othere Pr^ent Mr. V.K.Pandey, counset forttie pedfioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer forttie Stsrte/ respondents No.1 to 3. ORDER ^assed on 22"d Day ofjanuary, 2007) The petitioner made an applicsrtion for appointnwnt on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No.4. According to him, <he last date for aibmtesion ofthe application was 10-10-2006. Respondent No.6, son of respondent No.7, who happens to be a Sarpanch, made an applte^on beywid the specified period, i.e., 10-10-2006 and ttie same was accepted. Respondent No.6 was appointed atso. 2. Being aggrieved, tfte petitionef moved to the District Collector as well as to the Director, Panchayat, as preseribed under the rules. While pending appeals/revisions before the afbrementioned auttiorities, the petitioner has filed this petWon. _ r 3. This petiUon is not maintainabte on account ofthe faetthat the petitioner has already moved ttie statutoiy authorides to wail alternative remedy. This petition is premature. 4. Thus, this petiUon is dismissed a» not maintainabte, withoiA expressing any opinion on mertt. Ne order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihot Judge Sopal r