HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR WEET PETKTIGN (S3 N9. 858 of 2%$ : Ragh‘dnaih Ram Sahu. Ageci About 37. Y€a'“s, PETI?EGNER $lo- Faghu Ram Sahu. Rh) Viiiage— Kodagaxg Gram g’anchaya‘: ~ Thakurgapa, Biockk Takh’atpux; Distt. Biiasgur (C .G.) VERSUS : E. ‘tate 9f Chhafiisgarh ”{hrsugh its Secre‘iary, Deparimem of Panchaya‘i And Scciai Weuat‘e. D‘KS. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Coliactor, Biiaspur, Distt. Bilaspm‘ (CG) Sub-Divisional QECéx (Reveime) Kota, Bilaspur, Disft. Bilaspur (CG) RESPQNBENTS 1 r. Wk} 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat v Takhamur, Distt Bilaspur (CG ) Gram ‘Pa£1chay':¢1t Thakurkapé, Ths’ough Rs Sawanch: Block Takhatpur, DiStt. Biiaspm‘ (CG) ‘Jl ETEDN ‘ ?= IDER ARTICLE 2’26 OF THE CONSTH'UTION OF ENDIA $3: Ean’ble Shr§ Smish K. Agmhatrg. Shri Vina}! E’andey, Advoeaée for the petitioner. Shri Aiek Bakshi, Govermnent Advocate for the State/ Rssvomiem No. 1 to 3. ORAL OWER (Passed on liE‘ day of February, 2008) The pe‘iitioner, being aggrieved by noe-appoémmem on the pcs£ of Panchayat Karmi, has flied this peiition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a wrii’ of mandamus d§reet£ag ’ihe respondents to issue appointment leiier 10 the petitiooer. The main comemion of {he Eeamed coume! foa“ the peatioaer i3 {hat éespite yecomendatmn by Gram Sabha, Thakurkapa, ”the Gram Pamheyat has not appointed the petitioner on the post of Pamhaya‘g Kami. Learned ceunsei, in support of his oomeixtion, has produced the resolu‘iioa passed by the Gram Sé‘oha and not ny order whereby any reconnnexidaiioa has been made. It is well Settled that a resolution by itseif is oeither operative nor eti’ective. The same caimot be give _ effect FT 7‘ w d Z61 QI ‘io withoui passing a separate order on the basis of the resolution. Thus, it is not dear as to whether recommendation by way of any communication or order was made or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once recommendation has been made by the Gram Sabha which fmds place only ln the resolution, the Gram Panchayat is bound to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner; perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the recommendation has been made to the Grain Panchayat by the Gram Sabha for appointing the petitioner as Panchayat Kanni is not supported lay any document as the resolution by itself is not recommendation. Secondly, by recommendation, the petitioner does not acquire any right to the post or appointment on the said post. It is well settled that the right accrues in favour of persons/candidate when he is appointed or some other person junior in the select list in arbitrary.«' or discriminatory manner has been appointed. i the present case; no appointment has been made. According, to n learned counsel, the Gram Panchayat is proceeding further to take fresh decision. There is no irregularity or illegality in the action of the Gram Panchayat‘ There is no semblance of any statutory or legal right. Thus, this petition is devoid ofrnerit. The petition is dismissed, summarily. No order asto costs. /. ' "t sm- Satish K. Agnihotriu Judge . eadl a,”s .