@ \W @ $3N§LE gENEH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR v w. P. (S) No. $26) ’53/ OF 2010. PETITIONER : t Santu Ram Shori, S/o. Shri Rajau Ram Shori, aged about 45 years, working as Peon, under Block Education Officer Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS :1?” State of Chhattisgarh, RESPONDENTS Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare‘Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) The Collector, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) . Smt. Rain Kange, aged about 43 years, W/o. not known Assistant Grade —HI, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) Ku. Deepa Yadav, aged about 42 years, D/o. not known, Assistant ‘ g; Grade —III, Block Education Officer, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 6. Sandeep s’ingh Thakur, aged about 44 years, S/o. not known, Assistant Grade ~III, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 7. Shyam Kumar Sahu, aged about 43 years, S/o. 'not known, Assistant Grade —III, Govt. Bhartiya Higher Secondary School, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M ’ W3? Wm W10O/zargvoo mm (Wu) mam ammm mmm WW WW $a1‘manéw SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 24-06-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, cc unsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Go copy. Submission of learned petitioner was regularized (Annexure P—2). The work of not suffered any punishment against him. It is also submit adverse remark. Grievance is that petit1 consideration eligible Peon l Grade—III, petitioner has n supersession, inasmuch as re petitioner in gradation list of E According to the petitioner, 6 juniors to him and their namq list, yet they have been promo It is stated that a repre authority on 8.10.2009 (Anm alleged irregularities and illeg but the same has failed to evo vt. Advocate for the State, on advance counsel for the petitioner is that the as Peon vide order dated 29.9.2003 the petitioner is satisfactory and he has ‘ V nor any departmental enquiry is pendi’ng ted that the petitioner did not suffer any loner’s records being un—blemish, while or promotion to the post of Assistant ot been promoted and subjected to Espondent No.4 who is placed below the 'eons (Annexure P—3) has been promoted. ‘ven respondents No. 5, 6 8t 7 are also does not even find place in the gradation :ed in supersession of the petitioner. sentation has been made to respondent- :xure P—4) by the petitioner highlighting ;alities against petitioner’s supersession, ge any response. t Wm wt 200 mm (Wag) mmm mm§wm .iz( anfmm WWW ammm the totality of the circumstances and titioner, it would be expedient in the espondent No.8 to take decision on cordance with law and communicate the stameuto the petitioner. T aforesaid decision shall be taken within te of receipt of copy of this order, 1‘ ‘With the aforesaid dire n, the petition is finally disposed off. c 'o Taking into considerat the grievance raised by the “i Liintere‘st of justice to direct petitioner’s representation in h a period of 3 months from the J ’Sd/- i Manindra Mohan Shrivastgygij Judge ¢ i e r c a