’ I a»? 2m/~ SW$L£ aENCH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) w.P.(S) No. QM / 2011 (s.B.) PETITIONER : 1./Maiten Ram, S/o Annm Gore, aged about 35 yers, a R/o Diprapara District , Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.) 2.Munna Lal, S/o Sukhdev, aged about 36 years, R/o Village- Sirmudh, P.O. Nanpur, District- Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.) RESPONDEN 1. The State of Chhattisgarh— Through :- The Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) K. 2. Superintendent /Additionai District Ayu rved Officer, Bastar, Distt. Jagdaipur (C.G.) 3. District Ayurved Officer, S ura / VERSUS / TS D istrict Baster Jagdalpur(C.G.) 4. Ayurved Chikithsha Adhikari, Government Ayurved Ayusadhalaya, Dimrépal,Block-Tokapal,Tah— Jagdalpur, District-Easter (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. m 69 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 441 0f2011 E’E'I‘ITION ER : Mai‘ten Ram & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE'l‘I’l‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble bhn Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.K.Chakrabartv Advocaie for the petitioner. ‘ Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deollty Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 25 day of January, 2011) By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of Annexure P/5, P/6 and P/7, Without specifying any date. According to the petitioners, vide the order dated 04.06.2005 (Annexure P/S), the order of regularization of the petitioners were cancelled, and subsequently by order dated 16.8.2005 (Annexure P/6 ) and 10.11.2000 (Annexure P/7), the petitioners were relieved to join their new place of posting, as mentioned in the order dated 04.06.2005 (Annexure P/5 ). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the _ petitioners were gamed regular appointment, but without holding any enquiry, by order dated 04.06.2005 (Annexure P/5), the petitioners have been reverted to a lower post and at the Collector’s rate, without atfording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. On perusal of the pleadings, the Whole petition appears to be sketchy as there is no mention asto what are the contents of Annexure P/6 and P/7 and how the petitioners are aggieved by those orders. The order dated 04.06.2005 (Annexure P/5) is a posting order and there is no mention of cancellation of their regularization as no document in support of their contention that they were regularized earlier, has been flled. The grounds raised in this petition is so vague as there is only mention that the issuance o_fthe order by the respondent No. 3 and 4 are illegal. arbitrary and misuse of their power, without speeifying any reason. The petitioners have not made out any case for interference by this Court. The pleadings and grounds raised by the petitioners are so vague so asto one is unable to understand the actual grievance of the petitioners. There is nothing on record which supports the contentions of the petitioners. It appears that the instant petition is misrepresenting the Court. Having regard to the nature of the pleadings, relief sought for in this petition and vague pleadings, it is expedient that such practice should be discouraged. ln View ofthe above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge