ysK !^S^ '' ;^:'';^^^r-':^^^:3'^!?'Pis;i;'% ^l ^1j ^l 81: II.M lill ^ ^^ .IN 'THE: • STATE ADMINISTRAT IVE TRIBXjI?; o^-J:Io^tyLZlii9i A2?P£jICA'J;IQN UND|3R::SECTION iQH'0^: SHE' ADMINISTRATIVI TRIgUNAL SCT, 1085. 2. SESPONDENTS Yaduraj, .Patel. aged' 35 'ye'ars ,} • S//o Shri1 Chhaviial Fatel ; ' - •: Ex-Secretary,;Gram Pan cl"iayat Usraut/ Tahsil :& Dist^.Raigarh.;' 1<; State; of M,P,» throucrh Secretary/!Deptt< of Pa.nchayat Bhopal, ' : 2 oi Distrj-ct •Panchayats ; & Weifare Officer;,Ral.garh» 3 ol Up-SaiiichaIaK^ Banchayafcs • j and S^maj -;Se^^a,. Raigarh» ^ ,::; 4»! Kanhazya ^ I:al; Patel^Gram- Sah.ciyc|ik/ attlach^cl .-fcoj T7i.}<:as-- KhaBd^Manindraga.rh:^Distt» Satguja<» HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S^ No.731 of 2005 Si'ngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Ya.duraj Pate! Vs. State of MP. and others PRESENT: - Shri R,K- Pandey,counselfor the petitioner. Shri V.V. S. Moorthy, beputy Advocate fieneral with Shri I.N, Shrivastavo, Ponei b.wyer for the State, ORAL ORD6R (22nd August, 2006) 1. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wos appointed os Part Time Secretary by order dated 17.7.1978 (Annexure P/l) on payment of Rs. 25/- per month and thereafter his oppointment on part time basis was approved. 2, According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner hos contlnued to work till 13.11.1992, thereafter, without any order, the petitioner was discontinued from the service, However, the Block Development Officer, Ro.igarh in his report da.ted 24.9.1983 (Annexure R/2) has reported "'-^. that the petitioner has worked for 8 months and 14 days, as stated in the reply filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3, 3, Be that as it may, it seerns that the appointment of the petitioner was part time, not against any regubr vacancy ond not in accordance with the constitutional scheme or law. 4, In view of the decision of a constitutiono.l Bench of Hon'bte the Court in the co.se of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs, Umadevi (3) ond others {(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1), the petitioner has no right for reappointment, A writ of mandamus, as prayed for by him, carsnot be issued in the fo.cts _of the case, 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, No order as to n? '^ Bablu costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge