<^ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETCTCON (S) N0../.??:?.../2010 PETITIONER ^» RESPONbENTS ^••" ..""* >0^>""\^ ^•'"l/^'" ^ \&^^..-"" ^.•:$^'" <?)• ^. ^' ^' ?M'^\ 'G. R. Rathore S/o Late Shri K.R. Rathore aged about 48 years, Tracer, Chhattisgarh State Indusfrial Development Corporation Limited, Tifra, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Industrial bevetopment Corporation Limited, LI.C. Bhawan Pandari, Raipur (C.G.). 2.' Managing birector, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, L.I.C. Bhawan Pandari, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Manager, Chhattisgarh State Industrial bevelopment Corporation limited, Tifra Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur. (C.G.), 4. ' Shri S.W. Onkar, Draftman, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, L.I.C. Bhawan Pandari, Raipur (C.G.), WRITPETETION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF COUNSTETUTEON OF INDIA. THE :1 .^^^ /£^\ (^ i a w^w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1043 of.2010 Petitjoner G.R. Rathore Respondent Versus The Chairman, C.G. State Industrial Development Corporation & others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 21st Day ofApril, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following relief: (i) To call for entire records from the respondents pertaining to the case of the petitibner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) To issue of writ of mandamus and direct the respondents to convene the meeting of DPC within the time fix by this Hon'ble Court for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman. (iii) To direct the respondents to comply the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules 2003 Rule 6 (4), as well as Rule 9 of the Employee Service Rules, 1994- 95. (iv) To pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. The presumption is that rules are followed until or unless it is proved otherwise on the specific instances that any provisions of rule has been infringed. The petitioner has not pointed out any specific instance and, as such, no relief forissue of direction, to comply with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion). Rules 2003, may be granted to the respondents. With regard to the prayer clause 10.2 to direct the respondents to convene the meeting of DPC within the stipulated period is concerned, there is no ground specified or no provision of law has been pointed out wherein, it is stated that DPC should be convened on periodical basis . It is for the employer to convene the meeting of the DPC having regard to the availability of ""••^•s^. /^r^%. 11'<?1^ 1 ^ m^^^ '%^assS^ promotional posts and provisions of law. Nothing has been pointed out in this petition. Thus, the relief sought for, cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, clause 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Maryadit, Employee Service Rules, 1994-95 does not indicate anything as aforestated except that the Managing Director is competent to promote employees upto Class-111. In view of foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no writ can lie. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itslef. — —~ ^ Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge