re- 6-.' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0. 153 /2004/ PETITIONER NIRMAL DEWANGAN, SON OF , SHRI SUNDER LAL DEWANGAN, / AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF DEWANGAN MOHALLA, JUNA BILASPUR (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS l. l^ w^ <-^ .^ ^' ^/ 2. ^ 3. ^ 4. ^^' cw;v.v !>. 6. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT D.K.S. BHAWAN, MANTRALAY, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH). THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPT OF P.W.D., DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAST) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BILASPUR DIVISION, BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE y. /;' < ^^^\ .T« a.u,,. ''/' \i,. 01) PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER: As per cause title. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS: As per cause title. \\ PARTICULARS OF ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE f^^ s!^i* \\ PRESENT PETITION IS BEING MADE: ^^n jj yo(^v'^ // ^ '^.^-~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAjSPCR Writ Petltion Ho. 153 of 2004 Petitioner Ninnal Dewangan Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh aad ofhers SB: Hon.'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J None for th.e petitioner. None fer fhe respondents. ORDER ( 23riAugust, 2006) The foUowiag.-order of the Court was passed by Satish K. ya.lbottl, J. 1. The petitioner had ffled identical petition being W.P.No. 2664/2003, for the saine reUefas sought for ia tiiis petition, in fhis Court and fhe saine was disposed of by order dated 3.9.2003 graatiag liberty to the petitioner to inake a representation to the Collector within a period of 30 days. Tt was furfher observed that on such representation being made, the CoUector, Bilaspur would consider and decide tbe representation iu accoriance with law within a periorl of30 days. ' 2. Tn the present petition the petitioner claims fhe appointinent on the post of Draftsman on the basis of his selection in special recnutinent drive. on 22.4.1999. On penisal of the pleadings, it appears fhat flie Superuitending Engineer, P.W.D. Bilaspur by "• letter dated 24.1.2000 iirfomied the CoUector that on account of certain contingencies 30% posts have been aboUshed aad fhere was no vacancy of aay post of Draftsman on which fhe petitioner coiild be appouited. The petitioner has not subinitted any details more fhan the above stated facts in the present petition. | r Thakur 3. It. is weH setfled principle oflawfhat fhe petitioner has no right to appointinent even tf tus naine is found in the select yst Th( appointment depends upon availabilily ofposts and oflier factors, which can be decided by ftie einployer alone. The einployer cannot be (iirected to inake appointtnent of a person on a particular post when the einployer has decided to abolish fhe post in p,Ublic interest. 4. Por fhe reasons stated above there is no inerit in fhis case. The same deserves to be disinissed suiumarity. Acconlingly, fhe petition is disinissed. No order as to costs. SatishK.AgBihotri Judge