l.niin RsapK i@iB' tsS'QSK THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. <Seci8 / 2006 PETITIONER € ^ <^^ ^^y. .^^^//' .^ey^^y Raipur<c-G) .**' ^A**' ^~.<** :Liverchand Temhre -^ S/o Mandraj Temhre Aged about 45 years, Post- Phone Mechanic R/o- LIG, Qt. No-16, NearLaxmiNagar Dauda Colony, Pachpadi Naka t^S* ^>" ^y' RESPONDENTS c ^^ ^'" Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Union oflndia/ Through Secretary Ministry of Telecommunication BSNL Office, 10th Floor, Statesman House, B-148, Barakhamba Road, NewDelhi-01 - Chief General Manager-^ Chattisgarh Telecom Circle, BSNL Khamardih, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur (C.G) Dy. General Manager /' (Admn. & Examination Coordinator)) Chattisgarh Telecom Circle, BSNL Khamardih, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur (C.G) Asst. General Manager(l-I.R.D.)^ Qffice of- C.G.M.T., C.G. Circle Raipur (C.G) Y s. ^..' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO DQ. JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. 81;s 1K, aii HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURB CHHATHSGARH: BILASPUR Sit^e Beach: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. (ClNo. 6008 of 2006 Petitioner Liverohaad Temhre 'S Versus Respondent : Union ofladia&others Shri G. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Staading Coimsel for fhe Union of India/Respondent No.l. Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Senior Advocate with Shri Bhishma Kinger, Advocate for fhe respondents No. 2 to 4. Q RDBR (6th Noveiaber, 2006) 1. Accoriing to the petitioner, he was working as Phone Mechanic iii Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) circle Raipur. The petitiouer appeared in the departinental coinpetitive exanunation for proinotion to the post ofTelecoin Tectuucal Assistaat against 40% quota reserved for proinotional candidates. 2. Shri Moorthy, leamed Senior counsel and Shri Kiager, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondents submit that fhe petitioner has been declared as 'unfit' on fhe basis of inarks obtaiaed by hun. 3. The petitioner has filed fhis petition seekiag a direction agauist ttie respoadents for revaluation ofthe answer sheets. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner categorically admits fhat there is no provision for revaluation. or retotaUug of fhe answer sheets of the Thakur exainination, however, the petitioner seeks sympafhetic consideration ofthe Court. 4. It is well settled fhat in absence of any statutoiy provision, revaluation or retotalmg offhe answer sheets cannot be granted. 5. For fhe reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (TP