IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.GJ WRIT PETITION N0. sz /2005 PETITIONER ,yA \s/ Sf 77/^ //¥ /^/ w S.K. Tiwari, aged about 47 years, son of Late V.N. Tiwari, occupation - service, posted as Sub Divisional Officer / Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Sub Division No.2, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Resident of • - Imgation colony, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^": ^"..^^ li^ ,.\. ^^/^ ^c^ /.";; r^^ ~s ^l ^'^ ^.Y^. ^0 A G. BjbsDvr ^^•^y "^••^^^ 2. The Chief Engjneer, Gramin Yantriki Seva, Raipur. (C.G.). 3. The Collector Surguja (CG) 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat - Surguja, Distt. Surguja (CG) 5. The Executive Engineer, Gramin Yantriki Seva, division No. 1, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 6. Hitendra Kumar Vishwakarma, . Assistant Engineer, Gramin Yantriki Seva, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) WRI-LPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA^QR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR WRITS. ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR^ DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (^) ~S^ ^I^Sol^ ^xTl^S^^ f^TRTy . ^-^ 39/^)" (^i^^) w^ir^ifeN1 •^iT^I^?^^^ ^ 25.01.2005:- Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. 4ounsel with Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned The petitioner has preferijed Annexure P/1 by which the petitioher charge of Rural Engineer Servi| respondent No. 6. led this petition against the order of has been directed to hand over the j;es, Sub-division No. 2, Surajpur to Learned counsel for the p^titioner posted by the Collector, Sargujaj divisional OfRcer, Rural Engineer against a vacant post. Though,! therefore, the order of Annexure mention as to where the petitioner i^ On going through the ord< petitioner was simply given tl No.6. have heard learned coun the orders of Annexure P/1 and P/; '^T^RN ^T^ff ^ fe^ ^M^K •^•^Rma^? .L. for the State/respondents. submits that the petitioner was vide order of Annexure P/2 as Sub- ing Services, sub-division-2, Surajpur the petitioner is a Sub-engineer and P/1 is bad inasmuch as there is no to be posted. |r of Annexure P/2 it appears that the |e charge of Sub-division-2, Rural Engineering Services, Surajpur afid orderof Annexure P/1 shows that respondent No. 6 has been form^lly promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Servjces, Sub-division No. 2, Surajpur and the petitioner has been directed t<|> hand over the charge to respondent jel for the petitioner and gone through GRPRJ—FS/350— 12/2000—50,000. -+ ^ST'^TRT^R, ^ft^PT^, f®l<ni^^< ^•f- 3 7'^s ^I^T'^T'^N? ^^ ^T^T (^3^^) Taking into consideration '^nfep^ 1RT^'^ff ^ 'fe^ TN^K ^^H^fi^T the fact that the petitioner is a Sub Engineer and who was simply po^ed as Sub-divisional Officer, no right as ^ accryed to the petitioner to contij extent of document of Annexure P/t. hiue as a Sub-divisional Officer on the As a result, the petition |ias no merits and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly disijnissed. ~—— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ—FS/350— 12/2000—50,000. ^ /".^