PETITIONER Kanhaiya Lal Chaudhry, S/o Shiv Shankar Chaudhry, aged about 29 years R/o College Road Jashpur Nagar Dlstnct Jashpur (C G ) VERSUS RESPONDENTs /: 1. State of Chh-attisgarh y’ ’ \h through Secretary Panchyat Department w D K S Bhawan, Ralpur C.G. W Q 9" 2. Collector, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar (C.G.J / 3. Chief Executive officer, Jalnpad Panchyat Jashpur Nagar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / W 9;97 Ami: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETI’HON (S) N0. 7,2?Q (£2909 Kanhaiya La! Chaud'my. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION UNDER B: ARTICLES ’ble Shri Satish 226 OF K. THE xihotri. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS x S Hon A J. Present: Smt. Kiran Jain, Advoeate for ihe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhadun‘, Pane} Lawyer for the State/respondents I & 2. ORBER GRAL) (Passed 0n 14" day of December, 2009) 1. By this petition. the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Coiiector, Jashpur Nagar and respondent No. 3, i.e. the Chief Executive itioner on the Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jashpur Nagar, to appoint the pet post of Shiksha Kaimi Grade HI. The grounds raised by the that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents for petitioner are appointment to any person. Thus, a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant appointment to the petitioner. 2. The petition is sketchy as it does not disciose complete detaiis or any material in support of the aiiegation of arbitrariness and iiiegaiity. Even not gaining otherwise, this Court has no jurisdiction to direct candidate who has made an an empioyer to appoint a application for appointment. It is aiso not necessary to assign any reasons for not appointing a candidate on a. paiticuiar post. According to the counsel for the petitioner, no one has been Jashpur appointed Nagar. on the post ofShiksha Kami, Grade III, at Janpad‘Panchayat, '4‘ Thus: it is not possible to issue a Writ as sought for by the petitioner in this sketchy petition Without having relevant and sufficient materials. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. “t Sd/— ‘ _ i > Satish K. Agnihom: %