game gem IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH E AT BILASPUR W.P.N0.3Em OF 2003 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .' ETITIONER Shivrajdas, S/o. Shri Nirmaldas, aged about 48 years, R/o Salhe, Tahsil Dabhara and District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), VERSUS 1) The Board ofRevenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur acting through its Registrar 2) State of Chhattisgarh Acting through Collector Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3) Jagdishwar S/o. Shri Chandra Bhushan, R/o Dabhra, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226V227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT / WRITS, ORDER / ORDERS ICTION/DIRECTIONS ETC ") - 10" P W DRE . 9 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, CHHATTISGARH jBILASPUQ H Writ Peh'h'on N0V3811 ' "W of 2003 Shivrajdas Versus The Boani of Revenue, Chhatu‘sgarh and others. P0$TF02 ORDER ON 2201.2004 My, Sd/- i L.C.BHADOO ’1’; ‘ Judge (3"; 7 27.01.2004 7,7 ;r 7' ‘7’ C’WH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, CHHA’I‘TISGARH [giLASPQQ Writ Petition No.381 1 of 2003 Shjvrajdas Versus The Boani of Revenue, Chhattisgarh and others. Shri N.P. Kela, counsel for the petit'oner. Shn' Ranbir Singh, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2. 0 R D E R (Passed on17;r‘\ January 2004) As per L.c. Bhadoo J. 1. The petitioner has pleferred this writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constituiion of India whereby he has challenged the order dated 01.12.2000 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dabhra in Revenue Case No. 5-A/ 1999-2000, order dated 30-3-2001 passed by the Sub Divisional O$cer, Dabhm in Revenue Appeal No.22/A-56/ 2000-01, order dated 12-2- 2002 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur in Revenue Appeal No.158/A-56/2000-01 and order dated 12- 09-2003 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhatu'sgarh, Bilaspur in Revision No. 1 1/A-56/ 2002-03. I have‘heard Shri N. P. Kela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ranvir Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for Respondent No.2, on admission. Bn‘ef facts leading to mjng of this petition are that the petitioner is son of former Kotwar Nirmal Das of village-Same, Tehsil —Dabhm, District- Janjgir Champa. The case of the peh'tioner is that he belongs to‘na family of Kotwar his great- grand-father Meghnath was Kotwar of village- Salhe, a land of 3.97 acres was given to.him by the then Malgujar in lieu of Kotawn'u After death of Meghnath his son Janakmm was appointed as Kotwar some land was also given to him, thereby he was in possession of 10 acres of land. Thereafter, /- Janakram Iesigned &om the post of Kotwar and in his place his son Nirmaldas was appointed as Kotwar and he was continuously working on the said post. In the ycar 1999 after the elections of Lok Sabha, Nirmaldas swered &om a pamlytic stroke, however he continued to do the work with the help of his sons. Some persons made a complaint against Ninnaldas that because of his illness he is not in a position to perform his duties as Kotwar and Without performing the duty, he is getting salary, upon which a show cause nou'ce was served on Nirmaldas and he resigned h‘om the post of Kotwar, therefore, the post of Kotwar of village- Salhe was lying vacant. A proclamation inviting applicanons for the post of Kotwar was issued by the Naib Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. 5/A-56/99— 2000. In response to the proclamation the petitioner being son of former Kotwar applied for the post of Kotwar, some other persons also applied for the said post. The petitioner being son of former Kotwar was entitled for the preferential right over the other applicants under the provisions of Law. However, in total disregard of that provision of Law the Naib Tehsildar selected and appointed one Jagdishwar Prasad Slo Chandra Bhushan on a false pretext that the father of the petiu'oner was removed on some allegations therefore the peu'tioner was not entitled for any preference in appoinunent on the post of Kotwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the son of the former Kotwar he was entitled for preferential treannent in view of the provision of Section 230 (4)(2) of the Land Revenue Code. The person selected on the post of Kotwar of village- Salhe is 6‘11 class pass whereas the petitioner is 5th class pass and the petitioner’s case has wrongly been rejected on the gibund that his father had drawn the salary without performance of the work. On the other hand learned Govt. Advocate opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the father of the petitioner was found drawing salary without performing work on a complaint made by the villagers themfore the peu'tioner was not entitled for preference in the appoinuncnt. 8. I havc perused the order passed by the Boani of Revenue. In paxa-4 of the order it has been mentioned that in msponse to the notice invih'ng applications the applicants were entitled to submit their application up to 24.7.2000 Whereas the petiu'oner submitted his application on 5.9.2000. It has been further mentioned that the person selected on the post of r Kotwar of village- Salhe is more educated than the petitioner; and in View of the statement of Shivraj in which it has come on mcord that during the illness father of the petitioner used to :5 collect his salary without performing his duu'es even he used to go to collect the salary on a bicycle of his son‘ Learned Board of Revenue, Additional ’l‘ehsildar, Sub Divisional O$cer (Revenue) and Commissioner, all the courts have held that the father of the petitioner was sun‘ering horn pamlysis and he was not able to perform the duties and even then he used to draw his salary and the Sub Divisional O$cer (Revenue) has also considered the antecedents of the petitioner as doubtful. The father of the petitioner - former Kotwar even did not inform about his illness to the department and without informing to the department he continued to draw his salary therefore the petitioner was not entitled for any preferential treatment. 9. As all the four courts have reached to the same conclusion, them is concurrent hnding of the facts that the father of the peu'tioner was found drawing salary without performing his duties therefore he was not sincere to his duties and drawn his salary without performing duties, as such the petitioner was not entitled for the preferential treatment. This is a general provision under the service law that compassionate appointment on a preferential treatment are g’ven to the wards of those former employees who had served the department (with utmost sincerity, dedication and devotion and their service record is good and unblemished. As has been held by the four courts in this case the service record of the former /,H Kotwar —- father of the petitioner was not good and that is wh the peh'tioner was denied for prefemnn'al rights. Them is no maten'al before me to take a dm‘emnt View from which has been taken by all the four courts and them is no justiiication to interferc with the concun‘ent Eadings of the four courts. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court is entitled to interfexe with the impugned order under the supervisoxy jurisdiction only when the subordinate Court has exercised the jutisdict'lon which was not vested in it or exceeded his jurisdiction or the order has been passed contraxy to the settled principles of law and if the order imyugned is allowed to be exists that will work as a failure of justice. None of the above test satishes in the present case, thelefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by all the four courts Below. 10. In view of the above, there being no substance, the petitioner‘s petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed. Mai Sd/- L.c.BHADoo 37o, Judge ~ . \, ea