(%^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE SUNILKUMAR SINHA, & HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J J. WRIT APPEAL No. 372 of 2009 APPELLANT J.L. Rathore, s/o Shri L.S. Rathore, aged about 47 years, r/o Village 85 Post Na Nandour Khurd, Tehsil, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Water Resources Department, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer, Mini Matha Bango Canal, Division No..5, Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). 4. Shri D.R. Kumbhkar, Asstt. Grade-II, Mini Matha Bango Canal, Division No.5, Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(lt OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH), ACT, 2006 Appearance: Mr. N. Naha Roy counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer, for the State/ respondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (11.12.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal against the order dated 1st December 2009 passed in W.P.(S).No.913/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the W.PfA).No.372of2009 ^r appellant/petitioner challenging the order dated 04.02.2009 (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) by which the charge of Senior Accounts Clerk was withdrawn from the petitioner and was given to respondent no.4. Mr. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the charges of various posts are generally given on rotation basis. Respondent no.4 has already worked as Senior Accounts Clerk for a reasonably long period, therefore, the charge of the said post was not to be given to him and the order passed in this regard was not in accordance with the Circular issued by the concerned authority in this regard. The appellant was initially appointed as Peon. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III whereas respondent no.4 was working as Assistant Grade-II. The learned single Judge observred that respondent no.4 was more experienced and was holding the higher post than the appellant, therefore, looking to the experience and gravity of the post of Senior Accounts Clerk, the same was rightly given to respondent no.4. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. No costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge