t& HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR DP.8SJON BENCH Coram APPELLANT HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR1 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. WRfT APPEAL No. 55 of 2009 Shrawrain Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 19 yeare, R/o Village Kharve, Janpad Panchayat Kasctol, District Raipur (O.Q^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The^State of Chhattlsgarh, Through The Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S., Bhawan, Raipur - (C.G.) . 2. The Coltector, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) 3. The Zila Panchayat, through the Chtef Executive Offteer, Raipur C.G, 4. Janpad Panchayat tesdol through the Chief Executive, Kasdol, District Raipur, C.G. 5. The Gram Panchayat Kharve, through the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kharve, Janpad PanchayatKasdol, Distrfct Raipur THE MEMO OF VWUT APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATtlSGARJ+TnGH COURT (APPEALTO DIVISJON BENCHt ACT. 2006 Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, tearned wunsel for the appellant. Shrt.Sumesh Baja), learned Govemment AdvocErte for the State/respondents No. 1 &2. JUDGMENT (27th February, 2009) ^ 'li|;i!i The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Leamed counsel forthe parties are heardon admission. 2. Appellant - Shrawan Kumar Jaiswal has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 09.02.2009, passed in W.P. (S) No.811/2X)9. 3. Appellants/petitioner - Shrawan Kumar Jaiswal had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the complaint of the petitioner dated 26.07.2008 in accordance w'th law, within stipulated time, in the ends ofjustice. I, ' 10.2 Any other relief whteh this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 10.3 Cost of the petition." 4. The petltioner's entire claim in the writ petitoin was fsased on his alleged appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi by Gram Panchayat Kharve. 5. Shri Rakesh Pandey, leamed counsel for the appeflant fairly and frankly conceded that at the time of the appellant's appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi prior approval of Gram Sabha was necessary. Admittedly, in the appellant's ca^ no such approval was accorded by the Gram Sabhg. 6. Asthe appellant's appointment on the post of Panchayat tormi was never approvMl by the Gram Sabha, no right is created in his favour. (& subbu 7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeat. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is ^ereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustjce Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SMHA Judge