i/a’aix IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s) No. Kzw OF 2010 SmGLE BENCH ‘” Sandhya Singh, W/o Shri Sanjay Singh, Aged about 37 years, R/o Qt.No.9/41, Ispat Nagar, Risa“, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) .rs PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS f . State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Woman and Chiid Development Department # DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Directorate of Woman and Chiid T: Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur CG) Commissioner, Directorate of Woman and Chiid Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER :- W ~ 4 FA .:._ ( P 3%?A?H i B‘ILQSPU"? : §i“i‘R§T ti ”any xD ”v my 9 ugz.‘ g f» w‘m P £13 he: m e i § 1UN?— 1 $amwa $§nggn u'e25L35 Peii‘tk‘r; ‘ niiia‘twe is; naugm e c,» 3m; geigigm’i. Rgave ‘wad lix». somimteaé “m; a: gQa f”. I A m‘wwrvw. A; ‘i. ‘aaz‘ §dvaaa€e fa? the $e‘1ii‘i% «hey. gea‘fm'me : my ’3 43) ¥1§éih iha cag’ises’1i 0% §e$;'?:ed ccurasei em “ mg g; J‘e gym xe$ 2. i the net£wn §s 1% 8y ‘é‘aiS peimoa. seeks; a wwciécm w ma respmr‘erai ‘ihe 003i cf Swa‘vtsm a§ me u a) Lear‘iez: cmigwsa agg'eai'iw fax; me pei]‘z§wer :smgmi‘ts :‘aai pLgysaazwi ‘Eg he arggehmahemi :1 {3‘ 4’ Jmuea 33a he 9rd £23§ic§ 39w3<§§3ma’3‘é, Rahwn tha me L ahaw a ”w g ‘ A a? abiaimga é‘he yank m‘ ”:6? Awomirg *u Tag pe‘iikmi'aH, ‘rie? name irsaumd! ‘piace * Eha auaicéw m $§3§€$ (a? guhlhaiw c seéecé §§St ' Em resmgmem any 0: “ 5. . Be that as it may, it is weH eettie by new that a payeen whese name Is said w fnd piace m a $e!ect mmel waltmg hst ha$ no veSted nqht to get agapcmted t6 %he nos£ m spite cf vacanc5e3 § existmg (See Ludhaana Centrai Co-o eratwe Beak Ltd v j Amrlk Singh and Others ) E m Umon of indla and Whers a; Kah &$3 Bahsh am; Anatner tbn Sumame Court 9M ed that mere mciusion of a candidates name m the seieciioniwaiting 5M gave mm m ngml and if thcre was no right there ccuid be no eccasaan ta ramtam a writ pemmn fer enferaemem of a non-ex.stmg This Court .n Rajesh Kuwar Sewangan x; The Life insurance Corpuration ox indna & Others meld met “me em‘tonsr does nut acqwre an zndefa‘aSibie rJghr‘ i0 be apmmted 0n {he past 0f Assmart pursuam ta his saiwmn" ewd that n0 direcfmn can be gn/en 1‘0 leeks, appamz‘ment iez‘fer. ‘fo {he pet‘u‘loner ff‘eugh he hae game Gui ouceessfulv in fhe A§piyih§the weii-setiied principies af Héw ix) the facts of the cas'e b": hand thie peiition ie mentiess and as; suc’n the petmaner is no; emmed to any ieiief m the result, the writ petmon fails and is hereby éismiss'ed at the motion siege itseif. nghf ’ 3eia¢fion pmcew.” >fr sw- Satish K. Agnihotri. Judge ‘ MPHT 22 (CG) (mes) 10 sec 136 (2006, 1 sec 779 - 20a? { (b p i ‘ e ‘