IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR $WELE $E§R§€Z§¥ WritPetition ($) No. ?5/5 /2009 / Petitioner Chote Lal Dahire (C. L. Dahire), S/o Shri N. D. Dahire, aged about 49 years, Incharge Assistant Engineer, Janpad Panchayat — Patharia, District Bilaspur, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur (C.G.) —Versus— Respondents L/ tate of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat Patharia, through its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Patharia, District Bilaspur (co) 3. Collector. Bilaspur, Collectorate Premises, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. ’7 Shri Ram Kurnar Rathore (Shri R. K. Rathore), S/o Shri Rt P. Rathore, aged about 51 years, R/o Bharati Nagar,. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. .j S HIGH COURT OF CHHA'FIISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 7513 af2oo9 : Chote Lal Dahire. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgath & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTI'IUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihptri, J. ' PETITIONER Pwsent: Shri KKSingh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer far the State. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. URAL ORDER (Passed onW 11 day of January, 2010) l. The petitioner impugw the order dated 16/17.l2.z009 (Annexure P/I) wher'eby’the petitioner, posted as Sub Eng’neer in the oiiice of Assistant . Engineer, Janpad Panchayat Pajhariya, District Bilaspur, and looking atter the charge of Assistant Engineer, has been directed to hand over the charge of Assistant Eng'neer to the respondent No. 4, a regular Assistant Engineer. 2. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are so many Sub Engineers who are holding the charge of Assistant Eng'neers and, in the present case, the petitioner has been - picked up without any rhyme and reason and has been directed to hand over the charge ofAssistant Engineer to the respondem No. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 4 is a regular Assistant Engineer and the petitioner was only assigied the charge of Assinant Engineer in absence of a regular Assistant Eng'neer, though his substantial post is Sub Eng‘neer. A Sub Engineer cmnot claim to continue on the charge of Assistant Engineer as a matter of right. The petitioner was assigied the charge of Assistant Engineer for administrative purpose till regular Assistant Engineer w‘as available. g Claim of the petitioner, being a Sub Engineer, to hold the post of Assistant Engineer is without any basis. 4. The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly disrm‘ssed at the motion stage itself. ;'-, Sd/— . * Satish K. Agnihotrt Judge