..JlBWti.-^^— '^tor- ''< HIGH COURT OP <3HHATTIS©ARHATBILASPUR W.P.iCi KQ.5779/2Q07 PBTITIONER Aaoop Rateriya, S/o. Shyaan Kishor Raterya, a%ed about 45 years, Occ. Buiseness, CounciBor, Ward No.21, Raigarh (CG) R/o. Near Gaiirisha&kar Msmdu, Raigarli, District Raigarh (GG) Vs. RESPONDENT8 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Througb : The Secretaiy Urbaa AdiBmistration aad Development Dept D.K.S.Bhavaa, Raipur (CG) 2. Superuitendent of Police, Econoxiac OfFence Wing Raipur (CG) 3. The Commissioner Nagar Palika Niagam, Raigarh (CG) 4. CoUector, Distriot Raigarh (CG) 5. Shri Jethu Ram Maahar, S/o. Soaau Ram Ma&har, Age about 42 years, Occu. Mayor of Nagar Prfika Nigam Raigarh (CG) R/o. Rambhata, Ra^arh (CG) 6. Ku. Giteshwari Maahar, D/o. Jethu Ram Manhgr, Aged about 21 ycais, R/o. Rainbhata, Raigarh. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF TH.E COMSTSTmCW OFIISDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice SaUsh K. Agiihotril Shri Uttaia Pandey, counsel for fhe petitioner. Sbri Vivek Shanna, Panel lawyer for the State/Tespondeat No. 1,2, &4. ORDBR (Passed on tlds 4th day ofOetobcr, 2<X)7) 1. The petitioncr claiaung to toe a Ward CouuciUor of Ward Np. 21, near Gaurisliaakar Maodir, Muaicipal Corporatioa, Raigarh, is aggrieved by the appoiutment of respondcnt No.6 on the post of Shiksha Kanm Orade III, and as such seeks a writ iu th.e nature of mandanius agaiast fhe respondcnt No.l to declare the respondent No.5 as disquali&ed to contuiue aa Mayor of fhe Nagar 'A PaUka Nigam. Further, fhe respondent No.2 be directed to investigate the conduct of fhe ineiabNS of selectton conmiittee ia appoiu.ttng the respondent No.6 as Stuksha Karma Grade-III. The mam grievance of the petrdoner is fhat thc daughter of respondeut No.5, namely Ku. Giteshwari Manhar, without submittiag the appUcation was appointed on. the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade-III pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.08.2006 (Anncxure P-2). It is furiher subinitted by teamed counsel for fte petitioner fhat the coinplaints dated 21.02.2007/26.02.2007 aad 21.07.2007 (Annexure P-5 & P-6) were made to fhe respoudcnt No.l ( copy ofwhich is marked to the holders of the constitutional ofBccs) but nothing has happcned tiU date. Leamed counsel for fhc petitioner submits fhat the petitioner is directly ^grieved by the action of the respondents No. 3 & 5 in appointing the respondent No.6 as Shiksha Kanni Grade III. Heard learaed coiinsel for fhe petitioner, perused pleadings and the records appended thereto. AdmittedJy, fhe pctitioner was not a pardcipant aad has not made a&y appUcation pursuant to fhe advcrtisenient for appoiutaient on tfae post of Shiksha Karml Grade III. Thus, fhe petitioner cannot be held as a person aggrieved. The petitioner himself, beiag a Ward CoianciUor, caa take up ftie issue in fhe Couacil ofthe Corporadon and fiuther appropriate steps may be taken to rectify the aistakes, if aay, comiaitted by the respondent/authorities. K'S "S3^^S!S^^ti •^- ::1.^'' :%'INS:.";ISS;K S W^WBS^^ 8. No applicant for appoaitaacnt on the part of SMsAa Karmi Grade III ,has eome fortreffd eIiaBeagit^i the appointment of the respondent No.6 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. In view of the foregotog, the petiticmer is not an ^grieved pcrs<Mi aad has no locus to file the petition. This petition is accordiagfy djsmissed as not inatatainable. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge