HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Writ Petition No. SS04 of 2006 "•'pf,^". PETITIONER D- GONDANE. AGED - 54 C* rf>. 0<U LATE POSTED YEARS, GONDANE, ASSISTANT PRESENTLYWORKING AS - SENIOR ACCOUNTS CLERK, f^A 11C?A UnJltSn AS _^irsA_rtF- ii uKnUt-11, AT r\i/H\ U;iw> WATER Dr"?>-^! !Q/^F~Ct r\touun^eo DIVISiON KANKER (C-G.) Q '^\ ru>~> VVft i tr< sre^' iD^cc' COLONY, KANKER, DISTT. - KANKER (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS STATE OF THROUGH - CHHATTiSGARH, THE ETARY, RESOURCES D.K-S. BHAWAN, WATER DEPARTMENT, RASPUR 2. THE CHIEF MAHANADi RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RAiPUR, CHHATTiSGARH ENGINEER, PROJECT, WATER 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, INDRAWATI PROJECT CiRCLE, JAGDALPUR (C.G.) 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES Div'iSiON, KANKER (C.G-) 5. J.R MAHOBIA, ASSISTANT GRADE-il, THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER rsr"r*-^t) in-^!"'?? KtoUUKi-'ca Div'iSiON, KANKER (C.G.) Shri R K. Kesharwani, counsel forthe petitioner. .^-.i-. r5.-:i-—: /~t*.-..4 A >--sA.a £.^.y A!i.s Qt^tl£i Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Go'vt.Advocate for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 228/227 OF THE CONSTSTUTiON OF SNDSA Q R D E_R (03.07.2009) Challenae in this writ oetifion is to the order 24.8-2006 (Annexure - P-1) and 209.2006 (Annexure-P-2) passed by respondent No- 4 Vide order dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) respondent No. 5 was directed to appear and work in the office of respondent No. 4 whereas vide order dated 20-9. 2006 petitioner was directed to handover the charae of Senior Accounis Cterk to resoondent No 5- 1 '.-• Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that charae of the petitioner cannot be given to respondent No. 5 because the petittoner is senior to respondent No- 5 and he has cieared the reauisite departmental examination which is necessarv for the post of Senior Accounts Clerk. He, however, admits that the petitioner has not worked as a Senior Accounts Cterk but he worked as Assistant Grade- II. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that in the Department it is the Authoritv concerned who is empowered to sav as to aaainst which post the petitioner has to work- He submits that it is a routine administrative function of the department which is being managed by the Superior under whom resDondent No. 5 was aiven the charae of Senior Accounts Clerk in place of the petitioner- He submits that by the said arranaement senioritv of the Detitioner is not aoina to be effected in any manner. It is further submitted bv the State Government that initiallv the oost of which charae was aiven to respondent No. 5 was beina held bv one R-C. Mishra but as he was placed under suspension, temporarily the charge was given to the petitioner and subsequently vide order dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure - P-1) and 20.9.2006 (Annexure-P-2), said charge was given to respondent No. 5. It is submitted that substantive oost of the Detitioner is Assistant Grade II and not Senior Accounts Clerk and so is the position of resoondent No,5, and therefore their interse postings can always be made. Reply to this contentlon of the counsel for the State, counsel for the petitioner submits that postina of resoondent No. 5 is done on account of politica! influence where the name of respondent No. 5 was recommended by Local MLA to look after the work of Senior Accounts Clerk. Counsel for the petitioner submits that postina of respondent No. 5 has been made as he had misrepresented the Authorities and therefore, the petitioner is also prayina for departmental action aaainst him It is not disputed bv the Detitioner that his substantive oost is A.0.11 and so is the case of respondent No. 5. ft is further not disputed that his senioritv or the service condition are not aoina to be affected in anv manner bv fhe imouaned order. It is also not disputed that Annexures P-1 & P-2 have already been carried out bv the respective parties- It is settled law that in the administrative matters the Courts are not required to interfere in any manner and, therefore the present writ petition has no merit and therefore the rellef claimed bv the petitioner for quashment of Annexures P-1 & P-2 cannot be granted. So far as the relief in resoect of the initiation of departmental action against the respondent No- 5 sought for by the petitioner in paragrsph No. 7.C ofthe petition is concerned; it cannot be aranted in the present petition- In view of the foregoing discussion, the petltion being without substance is fiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge