_I_N 'IHE Hlw COURT OF JUDEQATURE $ AT JABALPUR 93 g OF 199s (PETITmN umER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE GONSTITUTION OF mDIA) wRI'r mTIT ION No Sri Anoop Verma. aged 33 yeaxS, Nagar ?alika Parishad. Chirimiri, Haldibadi, Chirimiri. Distt.Surguja. gE'rIT IONER: /fVV‘ R/o C/o Biphal Chandra Devnath Near Central Bank. Station Road. .. VERSUS ~ RESPONDENTS: § 1. Nagar Qalika Parishad, ehirimiri. Distt. Surguja. through Chief Execu tive Of fice r. 2. State of Madhya Pradesh. through Secretary, Local Self—Government. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE: 226 Am 227 OE THE " "' "c"o‘Ns'TI'r‘u'r'Iom OF mam r < . . w Mmwwmwh Municipal carposaticn Q§irimiri. Through: 1ts Cmmissiomm chirimiri‘ aww $f Chmt 1$gar1h Threugha Its Secmtary Lecal Self 430wrnmant Resmn$nt NO 2: ~ ”a @MK“ j, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 998 OF 1998 PETmONER Shri Anoop Verma Versus RESPONDENTS Municipai“ Corporation, Chirmiri & ' Another (Writ petition under Anicle 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ’P‘resent :— Shri Vinod Deshmush, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri a San'jay K. Agrawai, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 26‘“ day of March, 201 O) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a, direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on vthe post of Revenue inspector w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1—1 2—1 992 with all consequential, benefits. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Mohrir in the establishment of Municipal Corporationf Chirmiri (formerly known as SADA) since 1992. The petitioner is a post graduate in Commerce (M.Com.). According to the petitioner at the time of his aseiection, the committee recommended his name for appointment. on the post of Revenue inspector, but the ~respondent authorities have appointed him on the post of (ix xx Mohrir. \ \t @ Learned counsel funher submits that thereafter, on the basis of complaints regarding appointments made by the SADA, an enquiry committee was constituted and on the basis of enquiry report, the services of one Santanu Ghosh WES terminated ‘ from the post of Revenue Inspector on the ground that he is - not having requisite qualification. After removal of Santanu Ghosh, the petitioner submitted representation for consideration of his case for appointment on the post oft Revenue Inspector looking to his qualification and experience, but the same has not been considered and decided tiii date. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Iearned counsel appearing for the State, submits that the committee was constituted only to find out the irregularities and the .illegalities committed by the SADA, ‘ therefore, on the basis of report submitted by the committee .4 the petitioner cannot be appointed on the post. of Revenue inspector. Even otherwise, at the time .of submitting application for his selection'and appointment the petitioner has not applied for any specific post.‘ The appointment of the petitioner itself was ”not inaocordance with the constitutional _ scheme of employment. As on date number of employees working on the post of Mohrir, therefore, the matterregarding v grant of promotion shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the relevant rules. \\\Thus, the petitioner is not entitled. to, any relief.- ,V v t\\ \ \ \ \ \ Lhave heard 1earned rcounsei appearing for the : parties, peruseq the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. -lt is evident that the petitioner was appointed onthe. post of Mohrir in the year 1992. The committeewas - constituted oniy to find out the irregularities and the iilegalities > committed by the SADA white appointing the candidates on t, various posts. The said committee has no authority to direct the respondents to grant promotions to the eligible candidates. lt is for the respondent Corporation to promote the ”employees after consideration and recommendation by the Departmentai i Promotion Committee, if any. It is well settled principle of law that the Court cannot direct promotion of any employee to the higher post The case of the petitioner that since he was appointed as Mohrir he i _ should be apporntednonthe post of Revenue inspector, asthe " same is fallen vacant On account of removal of the incumbent, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of either promotion or appointment without consideration along with:other similarly I situated employees. lt is further not the case of the petitioner , that the petitioner was not considered for promotion or appointment; On the (other hand, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner along? With other a similariy placed Mohrirs would be considered as and when“ vacancy arises and the case of Mohrirs are considered for ‘ \ further promotion by DPC,, in accordance with iaw. , 4 080 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is berefi of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order asto, casts. ia Sdl- ' 7“ J ‘i Satish Judge K. Agnihotri gajg ’