y' .-M'... w a, ^,N ' ^' !L! Aarti Vishwakarma. w/o. Mahendra Kumar Vishvakarma, aged about 20 years. r/o. D.C. Road, Janpadpara, Ambikapu', SusgL.ia (CG). 1) State of Chhattisgam, through Secretaw of Heaith Department, D.K.S. Bhav/an, yantraiaya, Raipur, CG. 2) State of Chhattisgarh, through Coiiector, Surguja, Ambikapur (CG). 3; Chlef Medioal and Heaiih Ofricer, Ambikapur, District S'urgujs, CG. 4) Saniosh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Unknown, occupation Wartiboy, R!o. Vii'age Uda", Lundra, District Surguja (CG). 5) Ajay Kumar Sahu, S/o. Unknov.'n, occupation Wardboy, r/o. VBtage Murguncia, Tahsii Dhamdha, DIstfc Durg, CG. 5) Kumari Mamta Sahu, D/6. Unt<now, R/o. V'Hage Sanna, Distt. Jashpur, CG. fvVrit Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitutlon of India. SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Sunil Tripathj, oounsel for the petitioner, Shri P.K. Bhaduri. Pane! Lawyer for the State. (Passedon 30BldayofJune,2B08) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that pureuant to advertisement dated 12-5-2007 (Annexure P/1), the petttioner made an appllcation for appointment on the post ofVVaKiboy. 2) Conciition No:3 of the advertisement provides that seiection, if necessary, may oe through written or oral examination. On quep/, what is the prescription under law, whether any rules are framed or not, learned counsel submits that the petlttoner has maoe a representatioii to the Collector. When it '*as obseroed that the representa'tion fifed by the petitioner should be deoided by the Coiiector, learned oounsel fuither 1 submits that the Coltector is not the competent auttiorit<f. in absence of suoh materiai required, it 'is not possible to decide the matter. The petition is vague and Goes not disclose any cause of action for adjudfcatlon. 3) -Accordingly, t'ne petition is dismissed summarily. i Sd/- Satish K; Agnihotri Saju i-1,