.J' IN THE HI<a COOBI: OF JODICaiORE aT BIIASPOR (C.G.) WRZT HETITION tro32-2-C>/2006 ^TITKWER ./tr A°% ^y/ ^y^y ^y ^ »>»* VEBSOS Project Range Officer at S/o Shri Geadu Patil, R/o MIG-32, Kota, Housing ec.G.} KESPONDENTS 1. Chhattisgarh State Forest Chairman. (C.G.j 2. Regional General Manager 3. General WRIT PE'EITION UNDER BRTICT.E 226/227 OF THE CONSSITimiCN OF INDI& FOR ISStJBNCE QF IBtlT IN SHE NBa-ORE 03? CERTioaaai, wasasiasjs, vssxasixicas SSD POR OSHER sax'ssszs WRIT OR WRITS, OSDER OR OKDERS, DIKECTICSI OR DIRECTI<»B ETC. •^xv TT/I no XI-HC-78 *n*mTsh*ii<h 'SSf 'ttww<i, wf\wie, lstfflti^< __ U.PS^^o/ ^FT 200^ 3ll^<l 4a«ft(l^33^T) 3n^rwR-<i+ HqT3n^?rs»iM 6'K1|i;Kd1?(T3n^T js 4-7-2006 Mrs. Fouzia Mirzo, counsel f4 AAr. A.S. KachhcwAa, counsel Heard on admission. The main grievance of the is e!i9ible for promotion, but he has The case of the petitioner ^s Officer on 31-3-1978 st Panabarc|s No.43 in the seniority list of Technf the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste| as SC, however, thereafter, some n( the petitioner represented and san^e the service book. In the year was constituted for considerin9 (Junior), but in contemplation of case was not considered. The DPC| the year 1995, but the petitioner|! pendency of enquiry cgainst him. the petitioner was exonerated. Learned counsei for the petj' the Departmental Promotion Commj the petitioner for promotion to app!ying sealed cover process, but petitioner has been exonerated. 19913 Iik »l<ltCT<fl'<HI*1<nTfftecfl'<Rlt<K ^aif^ra'n^r r the petitioner. for the respondents, on adyancecopy. p^titioner is that even thou9h the petitioner |not been considered for promotion. that he was appointed cs Project Range Division and his name appears at serial fcal Assistant in the year 1989. AAoreover, candidate. Initially his caste was entered istake crept-in in the record against which was rectified vide order Annexure P-8 in 1, the Oepartmentai Promotion Committee pr[3motion to the post of Assistant Manager en^uiry against the petitioner, the petitioner's again considered the case&bf promotion in 1s case was not considered on account of the year 1997, enquiry was completed and tllie ^•ioner submits that as per the settled law, ttee ought to have considered the case of post of Assistant AAana9er (Junior) by ^he same has not been applied and now, the The petitioner has made representation XI-HC-78 HIHWI ShHlch 'sst r^Wv\^, aiTfltf'is, Riciwy . (^ y.s^ap/ ^200^ 311^1 ><d* (qqfgg^sr) sn^rqiifN^ (WW^Tsbli'h .a^ Soma ^ ^ ^' STtnWHfersn^T 2-t- regsrding his grievances, but that i( authorities. Learned counsel furthi be directed to dscide the represenll Kachhawaha, learned counsel appeaj objection. Havin9 heard learned counse| facts and circumstances of the cas< the petitioner is just, fair and opinion on the merits of the case of to consider- the representation of objective manner, after considering c period of two months from the accordance with law. With the direction aforesaid. Consequently, I.A.No.6363/2( Parties ore entitled for certil 4ii'!ifct<f)-i iitiirfTff ts'<3 <Ritdi<. ^iari^Tsn^T not being considered by the respondent submits that therefore, the authorities lation, in accordonce with law, to whieh AAr. ing on behaif of the respondents has no for the parties and having regard to the ;, the pr-ayer made by learned counsel for r-aascjnable. Therefore, without expressing any 1-he petitioner, respondent No.l is directed I'he petitioner and decide the same in an |the points raised by the petitioner, within <S(xte of receipt of a copy of this order, in |the petition stands disposed of. ])06 aiso stands disposed of. ed copyQf this order. —-- Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge ^<