@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] No '5kr\$"\ of 2010 PETITIONER: / RAJA BABU BADHEL wln S/o Shri Megha Ramcharan Badhel, $0‘P V1.9- aged about 29 year‘s, R/o — In—fronT of The LaTe Shri, Jagaf ,Shar’rhi house, Kumbhar'par'a, Karbala, Bilaspur, Tahasil and Dis’rricT Bilaspur [C.G.] VERSES V 01° RESPONDENTS :/1. The STaTe of Chha’r’riSgar‘h, Thr‘dugh, The Secr‘e’rary, Urban Depar'rmen‘f, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (6.6.). / 2. The Municipal Corpora'rion Bilasur, Through, The Commissioner, Vikash Bhawon Bilaspur Disfric’r Biiaspur' (CG). / 3. The Heai’rh Officer, The Municipal Corpora’rion Bilaspur, Vikash Bhawan Bilaspur, DisTricJr Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Par‘riculars of fhe Pe’ri’rioner’: \. ’ p , H§GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR WRIT PETITION (S NO. 3454 O? 2310 Petitioner Raja Babu Badhei. Versus Resgondents The State of Chhattisgarh 8: Others WRIT PET!T!ON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTDN OF lNDiA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. s'atish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Vijay K Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri A.StKachhawaha; Advocate for the respondent No.2 8: 3. ORDER gORALQ (Passed 0n 0‘5“ day of January, 201 1) l‘ 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondeni No.2 to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper in piece of his father anoi mother, who retired on 202.2001. and 30.5.2003 respectively, on the basis of sub ruie (8-a) of Ruie 3 of the Chhettisgarh Nagar Patik Nigam (Aadhikariyon Tatha Sevakon Ki Niyukti Tatha Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam 200? (for short “the Niyam; 2007’) (Annexure P-i), which provides for consideration of a member of famity, who had worked as'Safai Karmaohari, for appointment on the post of Safai Kamgar. 2. There is no dispute that the father and mother of the petitioner namely Megha Ramcharan Badhei and Smt. Bitti Megha were I: appointed as Sweeper on daily wages basis. They retired before the Ruies were notified in the Gazette on 24.1 .2008, wherein it has been provided that preference shouid be given to a member of ‘_ famiiy of Safai Karmaohari on appointment for the post of Safai Kamgar. [v Shri Bhaduri, learned Panei Lawyer for the respondent No.1 and Shr§ Kachhawaha, iearned counsel appearing fer the respondent No.2 & 3 submit that the petitioner cannot be appointed on any basis, as petitioner is claiming appointment after retirement of his father and mother in 2001 and 2003 respectively, today. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the sub rule (B—a) of Rule 3 of the Niyam, 2007, as the same came into effect subsequently after retirement of his father and mother. it is a trite law that an appointment without due process of law after inviting applications from all eligible candidates is viotattve of provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and as such no direction can be issued to the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Safai Karmachari without proper selection after inviting appiications from the eligible candidates. Thus, this petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. in View of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.