c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri SuniS Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam SharmaJJ. W.A.No. 456/2011 APPELLANTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Heaith and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (C.G.). The Chief Medical and Health Qfficer, Jagdaipur, District Bastar, (C.G.). VERSUS Anand Kumar Swi, Son of Gopal Swi, Aged about 35 years, Residence of Shiv Mandir Ward Jagdatpur, District Jagdaipur (C.G.). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF SUB SECT30N (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HtGH COURT (APPEAL TO DJVSSSON BENCH), ::• - ACT. 2006 ADpearance: RESPONDENT Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. appeliants/State. Advocate General for the SUNILKUMARSENHAJ. ORAL ORDER (26.09.2011) Heard on I.A. No. 01/2011, an application for condonation of deiay In fiting the appeai. On due consideration of the submissions made by iearned counsei for the appetlants and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appeilants has shown sufficient cause for not fillng the appeal in time and the delay En fling the appeal deserves to be condoned. WANo. 456/2011 Accordingly, !.A. No. 01/2011 Is allowed and the delay in filing the appeai is hereby condoned. . Heard on admission. The appeilants are challenging the order dated 18th February, 2011 passed in W.P,(S) No. 6436/2010 by the Single Judge of this Court. By the Impugned order the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed and a memo/letter dated 07.10.10 (Annexure-P-3 in the writ petition) has been quashed. By memo/ietter dated 07.10.10 (Annexure-P-3 in the writ petition) nominations from the employment exchange were called by the concerned Authoritles for appointment on the post of driver. The respondent was working as a driver on the basis of contract appointment. When he came to know about the above fact, he filed the writ petition. The learned Singie held that the respondents have initiated the proceedlng of appointment without proper advertisement, prohibiting the opportunities to the eliglble candidates to participate in the selection process. This was illegal, as the same was de hors the constitutlonal scheme.of empioyment. The Searned Single Judge, therefore, quashed the above memo on the said ground. On due consideration of the submissions made by iearned counsei for the appeiiants, we do not find any infirmity or illegaiity in the impugned order passed bythe Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Rahul