® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PE'HTIQN (S) NO. 964 OF 2009 PETITIONER Sitaram. S/o Ram Dayal, aged about 39 lyears, R/o viliage Amaidiha. Tahsil Masturi, Dismct Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary, Department of Revenue. Mantraiaya at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur (CG). The Collector. Bilaspur (CG). The Sub Divisiona! Ofticer (R), Bilaspur (CG. 5. The Tahsildar. Masturi. District Bilaspur (CG). 6. 'I’rkaram. S/o Daya Ram. by Caste Ganda. R/o village Arnaldiha, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 7. Mannu. Slo Banshi. R/o Viiiage Mukundpur. Tahsil Masiuri, District Biiaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/22? of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench: Hon’bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present: — Smt. Renu Kochar. counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed on this 1 day of February. 2009) By this petition. the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 31-1-2009 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. in revision case No. R. 3S/A—56/2007-08 (Tikaram vs. Sitaram & others) by which the/reuision tited by the respondent No.6 herein has been allowed by the Board of Revenue. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that to titl up the vacant post of Permanent Kotwar proceedings under Seetion 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 1959 (for short “the Code. 1959”) were drawn vide revenue case No.13lA-56/1991-92 and thereafter advertisement was published. On the basis .of the said advertisement. the respondents No.6 & 7 have also submitted applications along with the petitioner. After due setection process. the petitioner was appointed on the post of Kotwar on 30-94992. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that being \\ aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner. the respondent No.6 tiled an \\ appeal before the Sub Divisional Qfficer. who by order dated \\ \\ \ \ ‘3(9 30-1 0-1993 (AnnexUre-P/1) set aside the appointment of the petitioner. There- against the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Additionai Commissioner. Bilaspur, who by order dated 22-1-1998 remanded the caee to the authorities concerned. with a direction to verify about the character and conduct of the respondent No.6 and set aside the order of the Sub Divisionai Officer. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner. the respondent No.6 preferred the revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 31-1—2009 ailowed the same. Learned counsel next submits that without considering the material available on record. the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order. The respondent No.6 is not eligible for appointment on the post of Kotwar because there is no certificate with regard to‘ good character and conduct of the respondent No.6 and the petitioner is fully qualified and suitable to the post of Kotwar. 4) ’ Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order. 5) l have heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties. perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. While passing the impugned order. the Board cf Revenue observed that cnly on the basis cf the remarks made by the Patwari. the Additional Commissioner directed for veritication of character and conduct of the respondent No.6, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Board of Revenue further observed that the Sub Divisional Officer passed the reasonable order after going through the material available on record Looking to the suitability of the respondent No 6 to the post of t Kotwar the Board of Revenue directed the Nayab Tahsitdar, Masturr to appomt the respondent No6 on the said post Thus the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue rs unexceptionable. just & proper warranting no interference 6) it is welt-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervrsory jurisdiction under Antcle 227 of the Constitution of india should refrain itself from interfenng With the order passed by the Courts below. except in such cases where perversity. illegality. irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record. which is not in the present case. 7) ln view of the foregoing. the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 8) Consequently. l.A.No.1' stands disposed of. SN Awmot‘ix ‘ Gowri \\ i SatT‘S"K \ i 3udge \