»i;SMI!lt! Steii HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotr*, J. WRIT PETITIOW N0. 2361 OP 2001 Petitioner Respondents Versus :1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ravindra Sahu S/o Dayaram Sahu, aged about 34 years, Daily Wager, Municipal Council, Dhamati, TahsU & District Dhamtari (Clihattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh Through fhe Secretaiy, Department of Revenue D.K.S.'Mantrayala, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). The Collector District Dhamatri (Chliattisgarh). Miss Onuia Natr D/o Not Known, tbrough CoUector, Dhamtari. Smt. Jaishree Sardul W/o Not Known, througb CoUector, Dbamtan. Ctopal Yadav S/o Not Known, through CoUector, Dhamtari. Mirza Ayazs S/o Not Known, through Collector, Dhamtari. Preseat: Shri Abhishekh Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 8s 2. Shri Aneesh Pandey, counsel for the respondent no. 3. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. ORAL ORDER (13tt January, 2006) 1. Leamed counsel &r the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appoiuted on daily wages as steno-typist 20.4.1990 by the Municipal Council, Dhamtari to work in its establishiuent 2. Vide Circular dated 20.8.1998 (Annexure P-9), several posts were created for the purpose ofappoiutments ia newly created 16 districts namely Dhaintari, Jashpur, Korba, Janjgir- J^t ^tfe lAlnJ^hlie |B)J>h t»y|]» Ijti [^hyibj.cb y^k. t-U^ (by^ D^ltb (+ .^l'll+.y i"yy 4> t?ni;t iab^ yyj, ^h ^&h JI^L(^ ^ ^n^ ^B&fe fe^ ya^ t?(P^ <y ^ ip"" itl> tj'tt>n J®u^^ J31& Jii^ J^.^A 3tiL» -aapun SB spBM g66I '8'8E; paiBp .iBpioiitO ^aaiinuaAOQ ais^g aip jo g-asneo •eaa^oidnia AI S8BIQ pUE III-S8B[0 JO ^U3I[4TI!OddB 3Tp JO UOTflpUOO 3Tp lon si3i& qorqA 'pnno.iS aq^ ao pa^oafai SBdt ^t ^nq 'pSLiapisuoo SBA janoppad. aq^ jo aseo aqj, •Sitp[B)J3pafi jo^oag oiiqnd 3Tp jo aa.&ofdvas snjcLms ^on SBAI jsaopp.sd atp pTtB 8861'ZT'ie aiojaq siSBq sa§BA A[iBp ao pa^tdoddB ^OTI SBAI jauop^l^sd aTp I.BTP piino.iS atp HO paioafai SBA jaiioitttad aqj, •T •oy leuas ^ ^sid^-oiia^s jo Tromioo japtin lu&oqs si jaaopT^ad atp jo SIIIBM "866T"6'8/-/, II° PI3XI aopBUliuBxa aq^ at ^TiEnsjnd ^si( ^oaps paonpoud 3ABl[ g; pue T: •ON s^napaodsay aip joj SilueaddE a^BooApv "TAOQ AtndsQ pan-iB3{ 'AqnQ daapTreg uqs •s^sod sip. o^ SnipjoooB saaAoiditia aip jo AtT[iqE^Tns jo asodind atp joj pa^onpaoo TlOtyswiuiBXa p3^plit[ lafJB 's^sod 3tpi uo apBia aq KTA s^asitqiitoddB aip fBv^ papiAcud jaipjry: si ^j •sSap[E)J3pan jo^oag 3Tiqiy aq^ jo saa.iioiduia snidms aq^ pilB saa.iioidiaa saSBA ^jBp SB Snp[jodi 3J3A oqA saa^ojdnia aip moig apBui aq ppioA s^ou^sip pa^Eaio ^e&au 3Tp va saa^ojdiaa AI-SSBIO PTIe IH-8SB[3 jo s^U3TCqm:oddE atp ^Bip sapiAcud jBpiojro pree aqj, •qsapay B^qpBp^ jo afB^Q pspiAiptm 01 UOpUtQ pUB EqpJBMB^; 'iUBApBg 'BIB^I jndoaqs 'BpBMa^UBa 'panm'BSBqByi} 'BpIBH 'BUBIHfl 'jaSpIB^ 'q3BTII33M 'Tn^E^l 'Baioy 'EdioBqo ?TRFT (TS-TT *l<°yy^!!t 7TRPT ^ '9l4ulPl* ^q^iff ^ airf^RhT *4t<iRyT ^ ^t ^i^ft" l After heariag leamed counsel for the pardes and having perused fhe records, I am of fhe view fhat there is apparcnt error ia rejecting fhe petitioner for appouitment on the post of steno-typist. The circular did not conteinplate fhat only fhose daily wages einployee be considered for appoiatments, who were appouited prior to 31.12.1988. The authorities, who were part of the selection process, had wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not appointed on daily wages prior to 31.12.1988. For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is aUowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appouitnient on the post of Steno-Typist subject to suitabitily. No ori.er as to costs. Satish K. Ag Judge s' Bablu i-°