CL?-^ i:' mvw^s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS ^ ^ .\" i ^- ' 'yy y W.P.(SINo. : \5^|^ /2010 1. Pramod Upadhya, aged about 50 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh 2. Ashraf Khan, Weldor -2, age about 40 years, Weldor -2 Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Fulchand Tiwan, aged about 42 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Ghanshyam Singh, aged about 45 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Ramayan Pandey, Aged about 40 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh 6. Rajkumar Mishra, aged about 42 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh 7. Samim Akhtar Ansari, aged about 45 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.)] 8. Parmanand Pandey, Aged about 46 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) ^ ,9. Bhushan Prasad Sharma, aged about 45 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) <? RESPONDENT /..^ ^^^l{^^f :,^' ^ 10. Puniram Rathore, Aged abourt 40 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) 11. Bhuneshwar Pathak, aged about 47 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) /12. Balendu Shekhar Pandey, aged about 45 years, Ticket Examiner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) '13. Rodan Singh Patel, Aged about 50 year Upper Division Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) /14. Omprakash Pandey, aged about 45 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) ^15. Kanhaiyalal Hota, Aged about 36 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) ^16. Dharmendra Pandey, aged about 45 years, Asstt. Revenue Inspector Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS /1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhwan Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Director, C.I.D.C., Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhwan Raipur (C.G.) /3. Urban Administration and Development Department of Chhattisgarh State, Through: Secretary, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhwan Raipur (C.G.) /^4. General Administration Department of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhwan Raipur (C.G.) /5. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through: Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) ^SSSSiiK t^ Writ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.FQR ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ORDERtSt AND DIRECTIONS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1547 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Pramod Upadhya & others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others RESPONDENTS (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.K. Athaley, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 9th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the memo dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure P/6) whereby all the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations in the State of Chhattisgarh have been directed to make appointment of employees after relaxing the ban imposed for appointment on regular basis under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Officers & Employees Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 2007. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ex-employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the MPSRTC"). On the dissolution of the MPSRTC, the Government of Chhattisgarh took a decision to deploy the employees of the MPSRTC in various departments including the Corporations and do not make any regular appointment till the employees of the MPSRTC are absorbed by order dated 09.02.2009 (Annexure P/3). Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 11.08.2009, the order dated 09.02.2009 has been relaxed and it was decided to make appointment on regular basis. Gowri ^6 This is for the State Government to make policy decision for employment either in the State establishment or in the Corporation, in accordance with the Rules or executive instructions framed and issued by them. The petitioners have not acquired any rightpursuant to the order dated 09.02.2009. Thus, the challenge of the petitioners to the order dated 11.08.2009 that they should not make any regular appointment is frivolous and the petitioners have no legal right to question the decision taken by the State Government. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition being bereft of merit is liable to be and is according dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge