^ ;\G^' c -N THE tilGH CQURT CF CHH^TTISGARH A T cJL^SPUFi W.P. KO. !3i3'J OF 2002. -at; (. •- PET1TICKER ' Suchwaru Ram Pant, S/o Shri Gajadhar, aged about 32 years, R/o V.i.llags- Bata, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, (C.G.). ^ ^y^- . •t-i''- •'' /--t' 'F) p<'' ' . ,.-••'" &•-> J--/ ^ RESPONDENTS V ER SU S rr 2. ^ 3 4. •'F^ ^y QT^ fc&tf ,...-,,,- •i^)!' _»& 1' Stete of Chhattisgsrh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Kaipur,(C.G. The Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Silaspur ( C. G« / • Ths Collectoi, District Korba, Korba, (. C.L;. ;. Janpsd Panchayat, Katghors, Throuqh : The C'hief £x ecu- tive Officer, Katghora, District Korba,(C.G.). Motilal, S/o Shri Sanak Rsm aged xabout 30 yesrs, R/o Viliage Kanberi, Tehsil Katghors, District Korba, C* Cf } • contd.. .2 /2/ l,RH PETJ,TION_uKDER..ffiSICI,t 226/227 CF THE CONSTXTUTICN 5F__1NDIA_FOR. ISSUb CT AN .APH-.CPRlATE nnIT ^ THE N^TURi: uF_MANLwMJS/CEaTlffl-^Ahl EJC_._ CK MRECTION/CnDEft IN THE LIKE NATUi'lE ETC. on g'BET ^\WriV, ®tTl'(l<l<p,RlrtW3'< ^_^.'.P..^.,8.^3. *11*l«l^TT^ •••••-•••• W^2003- SIT^SIiRlR-li* craian^CTfbii* "V- / 3IT^9T (m? (yilg'si's) s^nw^fcran^iT 08.07.2005 <bWfri41'< 1Wdl'<t'fet<9 '(Rl'^l'i is sfRl*) an^ST Mr. Mahesh Pandey, leam^d counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Pankaj Shrivastava, le|arned Panel Lawyer for the State of Chhattisgarh. | Thisi petition has been fil^d by the petitioner under Article 226/2270f the Constitution of |ndia impugnes the order dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-1) Commissioner, BilaspurDivision, The case of the petitioner ij passed by the AddiUona! Silaspur. ^ that by orderdated 17.07.1998, the petitioner was not sefected as| Shiksha Karmi as per select list. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Collector under section 47of the sreferred an appeal before the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on 05.04.2000. The Collect{)r by his order dated 11.09.2C»0 dismissed the appeal as being b^rred by time. The limitation for an appeal is 45 days in c|ase of appeal to the Collector. (aefore the Collector was dated fled on 05.04.2000 there was a "he petitioner preferred revision Admittedly, the order impugned 17.07.1998 and theappeal was fl gross delay in filing the appeal. under section 50 ofthe M.P./C.G. tland Revenue Code, 1959 to the Commissioner wherein the limitati|3n prescribed is 90 days. The order ofthe Collector was passed|on 11.09.2000 and the revision was filed on 01.02.2001. The C^mmissioner by his order dated 12.04.2002 dismissed the revisior( also on the ground of delay. The petitioner, in this petition filed i|inder Articte 226/227, impugnes the order of Commissioner. The etitioner has not explained the .JO XI-HC-78 ^CTl^l^lri^, UTyi'i^KS, Rrtl<«y< ^^^^^-^••^^•••••- sn^ST (H^ (ytigq.a) 3II$STWft;ira> a^ITsn^OTgnTW STaTSR^flcfaiI^ST _ ^ Sarma delay in filing the appeal befor^ the revision before the Collector. After hearing the leamec) perused the records, 1 find that| condonation of delay. This is not selected in July, 1998. T^i order can be passed disturbing] who have been duly appointed fn view ofthe foregoing, No order as to costs. the Collector or thereafter in filing Comntiissioner against the order of the ^ counsel for the parties and having no ground has been made out for ^n old case and the petitioner was '4>day after a period of 7 years, no the appointments of other persons ity the select list dated 17.07.1998. tfie petitioner is dismissed. *|i<fd41'141*ld)'^ffet<l •(Katcit i|>3l1^T3II^<T sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge