BEFORE TH“! MADHYA PRADE‘SH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: BHOPAL BENCH: BHOPAL: \VK CLA, No” B 297/95. L / @ {A APPLICANTS z l. Alok Nayak, aged about 46 years, son of late Shri M.C.Nayak, occupation Assistant Engineer, Raipur , 27° T.S. Sullere, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Late B.Sullere,0ccuptation Assistant in the OEfice of Chief Engine: Mahanadi Project,Raipur, resicient of L—21, Anupam Nagar, Raipur. VerSus RESEKBNDENTS: 1. The State of Madhya Frades‘n ~through $ecretary, Water Resources Department Govt.of MOP. Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal. 2. The Engineer—in—Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of M. P. Bhopal.‘ REPLY TO THE AP?LICATION: The Respondent named above most humbly anci reopectfully submit as under:- 1. That the applicantAhave fileé this application alleging that the Respondents are revieing the Gradation List of Assistant Engineers by constituting a Committee and the constitution of such committee is illegal and void. The Applicants have prayed this Hon'ble Tribunal to cieclar. the constitution o£ the 3 committeekf r scrutinising the 2., That the ReSpondents most respectfully submit that the application is misconceivea and &;’@V0‘i§ of 'SubStance Gradetion. @/w ; W Wm w:.?.~.C.€JMLm/Y meIW (W) anémmiéwiai wmm mam§ticwmw aiwanézr mmmaané‘zr SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mo ian Shrivastava, J. 22-01-2010 Shri Anupam Dubey, c sel appears under instructions of Shri Thakur Vijay Singh, counsel fort e petitioners Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Pa el Lawyer for the State/respondents Heard. fiied by the petitioners challenging the constitution of committee which as to prepare and tinalize the gradation iist. The return has been filed y the respondents stating that the petition is pre—mature because gradation li t has not been finalized. The Government constituted purely an advisory ommittee and is not bound to accept its recommendations. It has also b en stated that the committee has submitted its report to the department and the same is under examination. lt has been further stated that no recomme dation of the‘committee has been accepted so far. Respondents have clarifi d that if there is‘an amendment in the said gradation list then the petitione have a chance to explain their position and submit representations as requir d under rules. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, l am of the opinion that no usef l purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending. ln View of the foregoing the petition ‘stands disposed of However liberty is reserved to the petition r to revweihe petition if theicause of action The present petition wa Turnane still surVives for consideration . Sd/_ lManmdra Mohan Shrivastava l Judge i W o n ,