HiGl-i COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition ( S) N0. 827 0f2009 PE'i‘ETION ER Neel Kama] Garg. S/o R.S.D. Garg, aged about 48 years, occupation Govt. Servant Rurai Agriculture Extension Oiiicer, Block Biiha, Distt. Biiaspur (CG) R/o Chandan Awas 3/9 Raj Kishore Nagar, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Persormel and Traming Depm‘tment New Delhi. 2. The State of M.P. through Secretary Department of Agdcuiture, Bhopal (MP). 3. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department ofAgricuiture, Raipur (CG). . G.S. Kaushal Retired Director Agriculture Department Bhopal M.P. Through Director Agriculture the Department M.P. Bhopal (MP). (WRET PETI’l‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF INDIA) ('SB: Elon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) resent : Shri Anup Kumar Shanna. Advocate for the petitioner. S Ki Rakesh Jim, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. Sim” R. Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (Paeseil on itlgi day el‘ February, 2999) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.10.2002 (Annemre W2) anci letter dated 12.05.2006 (Annexure P/7), whereby the representations of the petitioner for allocation from the State of Madhya Frariesh (for short 'MP‘) to State of Chhattisgarh (for short ‘CG‘), has been reiected. 'P Mi gi Against the rejection order dated 18. 10.2002, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh being W.P.(S) No. 2276/2003. After consideration at iength, the said petition was disposed of in terms ofpara 10 ofthe order passed in W.P. No. 21562 of2003. Learneci counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that para 10 of the order passed in WE No. 21562 ot‘2003, was liberty to the petitioner to make second representation. The petitioner made second representation to the State of MP. an& Union of India. After considering his representation, he was informeci by ietter dated 12.05.2606 that his representations dated 25.02.2006 and 08.03.2006 have been rejected. The petitioner has not alleged any discrimination, arbitrariness or malafide in the petition. The Union of india. atter. having considered the representations of the petitioner, has taken a decision not to allocate the petitioner ii‘om the State of MP to CG. Unless there is an allegation of discrimination. arbitrariness or malafide, it is not appropriate to interfere with the administrative decision taken by the Union ofl'ndia and Govt. of MR Accordingly, this petition is dismissed summarily being devoid ofmerit. Satin Sd/— . ._ satish K. Agnihoiri ' Judge