..y ^ngleSefficfi IN THE HIGH COURT OF.CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR. WRIT ramTibN NO. N-?9 ^ 0^2004 PETITIONER %^^ y« <Q^Si^ ^•-"s^'ftj^1" ^^^•r^ "^^"^ -^ RESPONDENTS ^ ^e^ ^.^r^ ^ ./•^?^' .••''' "pf '' ^ .**' B*« K ..-•*' vu^.y"^ "^t\^ ^•••'•^A 'Maniklal RarS/o ShH,^LayiramRai,Ageci 'abQut ^4 yeai-s, R/p;ViHage.Kumhari Post . : Marwahi,DistrictBilaspur,fe.G.). •y^B^RSV& ! , : ..,;:. •.: •.- ' 1. State ofphhattisgrh,'nirough:The "SScretary, Forest Department, D. K. S. . .Bhawan, Raipur, (C^G.). 2. The Divisional Forest Qfficer, N6rthBilaspurDivision:Bilaspur(C.G.). 3. The Divisional Forest Qfficer; Marwahi'-DivisiQn, Pencli-aroad, .District Bilaspi.ir/fC.G.). ; "s ^." Cha(naru: Rara IMawaT;' (Foresfc GTLiard), TBroHgH.^the Gtiief Consei-vator of Forest Raipur.."(C:©.);': .; ^ .:.,' ^ ^ ;, ^: I's^w WRITPBnTIO]'iFUNDERARTICLE^228/2270F"THECO STITimON OF INDIA FOR ISSIJE^F AN^e @I>RIA^ WR ^CT OIiLMANDAMUS/CEiniORAlff ®I^S©R DIR^^ IN THE UKENATlTRE^a'C. - 3 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRLT PETIT1QN N0. 4796 OF 2004 Maniklal Rai RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAU 'j_ (Passed on this 29 day of Mairch, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Guard from the post of Godown Keeperwith all consequential benefits. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the petitioner was appointed as Godown Keeper initially for a period of three months by order dated 15-7-1985. Thereafter, he was appointed on temporary basis, but on a regular pay scale. The petitioner is still continuing in the same capacity. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.4 who was also working as Godown Keeper has been promoted to the post of untrained Forest Guard by order dated 31-7-1989, thus, the similar benefit may be extended to the present petitioner atso. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no promotional avenue from the post of Godown > )i'l:itiS(f,^ s&. Keeper to the post of Forest Guard and, as such, the petitioner cannot beconsidered for promotion on any ground further his appointment is also temporary. The appointment of the respondent No.4 on the post of Forest Guard is not by way of promotion from Godown Keeper. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the respondent No.4 was not appointed by way of promotion from the post of Godown Keeper by order dated 31-7-1989 (Annexure — P/2). It is crystalclear that the respondent No.4 was appointed as untrained Forest Guard on th$ basis of his earlier service as Tendu Patta Forest Guard. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was also working earlier as Tendu Patta Forest Guard. Thus, the petitioner has no right to be considered for tbe post of Forest Guard on the basis that other person (respondent No.4) has been appointed. There is no rule or executive instructions brought before the Court whereunder the contention of the petitioner gets any support. The petitioner is working as Godown Keeper on temporary basis knowing fully well that there is no promotion thereafter to the post of Forest Guard. 5« For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/'- SatishK.Agmfao^ Judge n