@ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH‘ ~ CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. WRIT PETITION 2623 OF 2002 PETITIONER K. Shri Nivas Ro, Slo Shri K. Trinath, aged about 28 yars, Watd No. 10, anendragarh District Korea (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Union of Indi Thtough The Secretary, Ministry of ailways. Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. Generai nager, South Eastern Raiiway, Garden Reach, Calcutta Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur. Sri Divisional Railway Engineer, South Eastern Railway, ilaspur. Present : Shri Yashwant Tiari, larned counsel for the petitioner. Shri inay Harit, earned Sr. counsel for the respondents. (Passed on 12 April, zoos) e win b Th follog oral order of the Court was passed y S.R. NAYAK, C.J. The dispute rought before this Court relates to appointment f b o .Monsoon Patrolmen for period of 190 days during the Monsoon a session in the year 196. Whereas t is the ase of the department 9 i c that the eliibility of candidates for that appointment should be assessed by conducting physical test as well as interview, it is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of administrative instructions issued by the department, the eligibility should be decided only on the basis of physical test (in this case, race test) and not on the basis of the performance in the race test as well as performance in the interview. f” V ’w a e M a R Ma B w V l oRAL ORDER ‘“ Having perused the administrative instructions issued by the department contained in the circular dated 29-05-1995, we cannot say that the recruiting agency committed any error in conducting the interview of the candidates who applied for the post of Monsoon Patroiman. Secondly, such a practice is adopted not only in the case of the petitioner herein, but, universally, that is to say, in the case of all others who applied for the said post. Above all, at this distant of time, we cannot give any relief to the petitioner, not even a direction to the department to consider his case afresh for. after 1999 and till this day, large number of others might have acquired eligibility to apply and .to be considered for the post of Monsoon Patrolman by virtue of Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution, and therefore, even preferential treatment could not be extended to the petitioner. We do no‘t tind any merit whatsoever in the writ petition. It isaccordingly dismissed, However, this order shall notrcome in the way of the petitioner and similarly. circums'tanced others, if they continue to be eligible to apply for the post of Monsoon Patrolman from applying for the said post, in the event of the department calling for applications to make appointments in future to the post of Monsoon Patrolman. (2) ‘ 7- >//( fix “AW 1 Ii Sdl- Sdl— r. \ Dim) Raosaheb Deshmu . I @efJIPsEFe e ‘ Judge