,J. Writ Aopeal No. 223 of 2010 Shri Anoop Verma, aaed about 45 years Nagar Palika Chirimlri R/o. C/o. Bipha! De'/nath near Central Bank, Road, Haidibadi, Surguja (C.G.) Chandra , Station 1. IVIunicipal Corporation Chirimiri, through its Commissioner, Chirimiri, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Local Self Government. (Appea! to Division BenchS Act.^j Present: Shri Vinod Deshmukh; tearned counse! for the appeilant. . Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additiona! Advocats General for the State/ respondent No.2. ISt The following judgment of the Court was passed Learnea' counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Anoop Verma has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 26-03-2010, passed in W.P. No.998/1998. - pS-iS. -A -5? A •_ •'& 1 '?k ^.^•^ 3) The appellant/ petitioner flled the writ petition for the fol reliefs: "(a) direct the respondents to give effect to the recommendations given by the Sub-committee in its reportdatedt 1-04-1994; . (b) direct the respondents to issue necessarv orders appointing the petitioner to the post of Revenue Inspector retrospectively w.e.f. the date of his initiat appointment, Le. 1.12.1992; (c) direct the respondents to grant to the petitioner all the consequentia! benefits such as arrears of wages, seniority eto.;. (d) any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4) The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the recommendations made by the Sub-committee in its report dated 11-04-1994; the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Revenue Inspector with effect from the date of his initiai appointment i.e. 01-12-1992; the respondents be directed to grant al! consequential benefits. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behaif of the parties found that the Municipal Corporation was under no obligation to implement any/all the recommendations of the Sub-committee; as the petitioner had no right for his appointment on the post of Revenue Inspector, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondents. Learned Singie Judge, therefore, dismissed the appellant's writ petition vide impugned order dated 26-03-2010. <•--•<» Ks-^-1 V t> '<- ^.. '' 6) Shri Vinod Des'nmukh, learned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the Municipai Corporation while accepting the part of the recommendations made by the Sub-committee leading to remova! of one Santanu Ghosh from the post of Revsnue Inspector, couid not have avoided to implement the other part of the report recommending the appointment of the appeltant to the post of Revenue Inspector. 7) The Sub-committee apparently was constituted by the Municipal Corporation to examine the irregularities, if any; in the appointments made to certain posts. it was; thus, not within the domain of the Sub-committee to make recommendations about the suitability of a person for appointment to a particular post. The appeitant, thus, cannot claim as of right his appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector on the basis of the recommendation of the Sub-committee. The appellant witlingly and without any murmur accepted his appointment to the post of Mohrir and ssrvea' as such for a period of more than five years. 8) In this view of the matter, we do not find any good ground .warranting interference in this intra Courtaopeal. 9) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summariiv. ..— Sd/- ChiefJustici r^s. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu