ca c.f- ,6. Ifil / IN THE HON»BLEHIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0.^^^ OF 2011 PETITIQNERS ^ .^. •^y^y- ^^•-' 1. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Umashankar Tiwari, aged about 25 years, Working as Pump Operator. 2. Shatrughan Mishra, S/o Late Shri K.N. Mishra, aged about 26 years, Working as Peon. 3. Banarsi S/o Shri Gopalji, aged about 22 years, Working as Lineman. 4. Arvind S/o Late Dular Kunwar, aged about 26 years, Working as Driver. 5. Ramgiya, S/o Ganesh Prasad, aged about 28 years, Working as Clerk. 6. Bhagwandin S/o Banmali, aged abt)ut 36 years, Working as Plumber. 7. Ajay Vishvakarma S/o Late R.P. Vishvakaram, aged about 35 years, Working as Driver. 8. Semlal S/o late Shri Phalai, aged about 42 years, Working as Peon. 9. Kumari Niharika Singh D/o Ramji Singh, aged about 24 years, Working as Recovery Agent. ^ w RESPONDENTS 10 Vijay Kumar Vishvakarma S/o H.C. Vishvakarma, aged about 25 years, Working as Watchman. All are daily wages employee of Nagar Panchayat - Khongapani District Koria (C.G.). VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Under Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Nagar Panchayat- Khongapani, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat- Khongapani, Dfstrict Koria (C.G.). 4. Asmita Enterprises, Placement Contractor, Manendragarh, District: Koria (C.G.). WRIT PETITIOILUNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 3?I1^T ^FT f<^icb ^TT 3TI^T^?rt^ ft'avee'Di ^ '3^1 ^ll^ld^, ^•(-iq<o, [c(dl-y^< NIMdl*.i*-^-cu-^-^lk200 3T^T TI^F ( ytf^^) ^HWRf^T 3?T^?T FSB : Hon*ble Shri Manindral cr»i<<f<ii<iiiTnTR;if^ fec3t <r3i^i< '^3tfiR3?n^T Mofaan Shrlvastava, J.1 12.5.2011 Shri Stideep Agrawal, c4unsel for the petitioners. Shn P. Bhaduri, Panel| Lawyer for tAie State, on advance copy. Heard on admission. Though seveml reliefs Ijiave been sought by the petitioners in this petition, leamed coxi^sel for the petitioners confuies his prayer only to fhe extent. th4t as the petitioners are working as Daily Wage Employees, as a|id when regular recruitinent taJkes place, respondents may be (^lrected to consider fhe candidature of the petitioners subject eligible for the appointment t(j The prayer is not oppo^ [o petitioners being qualified and ttie post. ed by fhe State side. The prayer of leamed c^unsel for fhe petitioners appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, fhis petitijon is finalty disposed of wifh fhe observation that as and {when respondents make regular recniitment, fhe petitioners s|iaU also be allowed to participate in the process of selection on aj)propriate application filed by them, in accordance witli ftie procec|ure prescribed for selection. ^.M^— \-