iI w x3$ 3.5x? WuLE @Emi EN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. s. No‘ 63Dg/2009 ($3.) / "jL [11TITIONER Hitendra Borkar S/O Manishankar Borkar, aged about 28 yearsa ReSident of ViHage Charama Bhatapara, Tashil Charamaj Digxrict ~ Kanker North W Bastar, (CG) VERSUS of 1) State Chhattisgarh,"fhr0ugh Sgcretaly pubiic health and famiky welfare Department 11KB. Bhawan, Ra§pur (Ca) 2) Director State Health Resource Center first £10m ' health training center campus, Kalibadi, gaipm, (CG) W. Q WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. - ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIgGARH . : BILASPUR 3 0 W Writ Petition (S) No. 6308 of 2009 Petitioner Hitendra Barker Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh &. another WRITPE’I‘IQQE QyQER ARTICLE 226 [227 OF THE COES’I‘I’I‘U’I‘ION OF IEDIA. _ (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn' J.) Ms. Rei1;1 Kocher, Advocate for the petmoner. Shn‘ A. V. Shlidhar, Panel Lawyar for the mspondents. o R D E R 10ml} Passed on this 4th day of November, 2009) Heani. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that ,the‘ website of the respondents does not contain the complete select list in regani to the interview cum written assessment, held on 7th March 2009 for the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor under the NVBDCE NRHM programmes, for that a writ may be issued by this Court. ‘2. The law is well settled. A writ can be issued to enforce a statutory or constitutional right. In the present case the.,.g1_ievance of the petitioner is that his name is not included in the select list, which is available on the website of the respondents. In the given circumstances the proper forms may have been to approach the concerned authority or forum to obtain complete list. This Gourt should not interfere or direct that some names are missing hom the select lishtherefore those may be included. In ‘view Vof the foregoing, the petition is devoid of meritnnd it is accordingly dismissed. [fl/é. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (