' H!GH COURT OF CHHATTI-SGARH AT B'LASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bis Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. W.A.No.404/2010 ADRellant etifloner Vs. 1 2. 3. Rohit Kumar ?v!ahobey, S/o. Shri Shiv Prasad Mahobey, Aged about 41 R/'o. Rajnandgaon, Motipur, Ward No.6, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) High C-ourt of Chhattisgarh, through Registrar General, Bilspur (CG) District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, S/'o. Shri Mahendra Kumar Shriyastava, Aged about 40 years, R/'o. New Police Lines, Rajnandgaon (CG) Present: Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the appellant. Shri Qoutam Bhsdurit counssl for respondents No.1 Ss. 2. O R A L O R DE R (25.01.2011) Learned Singte Judge by impugned order (Annexure-.A./t) has dismissed writ petitio" of the appel.'ant against the order dated 10.12.2001, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appe'lant's promotioR from the post of C-terk-Steno to the post of Stenographer has been cancelled and respondent No.3 has been promoted on the post of stenographer. "»>,... % .•""^ % ?.-^!' 4 The nn!y plea take" by the appe!lant that the impugned order canceiing the prQmotion of the appellant and revertlng him to his original post of Clerk-StsRQ has been passed in contrayentiQn of doctrine of aud! alterm partreFn withQut givin.g any Qpportunity of hearing, has been rejected by the impugned order with a" QbservatiQ" that in She case in hand, the appellant has not been able to substantiat6 as t" what nsw material hs wou!d ha'/e brouaht in support of his stand, had he bsen given an opportunity of hesring by the respondents and no prejudice is shown t" have been caused to the appe!!ant due to nQn-compliance of principle of natural justice and that too only one conclusion was possible even after such compliance. Only argument adyanced by Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counse! forthe appeHant uuas that before the impugned order wss passed, principles of natura! justice were not complied and that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Learned counse! for respondents No. 1 & 2 has supported the impugned order. We have csrefully examined the pleadings of the respectivs parties as we!l as the impugned order. The above arguments have been considered by learned Singie Judge in detail in the impugned order and the same havs been rsjected with aforesaid observation by placing rehance on various judgments of Supreme Court. We are in entlre agreement with the finding of learned S'ngte Judge that non- compliance of princip!es of natural justice in the case i" hand has not resulted in any prejudice to the appeNant and the appe!!ant cou!d not '•Sfi shQv' that had he bee" afforded with a" Qpportunity of hear'RQ diffsrsnt CQp.clusiQR was Dossibls. 6. Learned Single Judge has aiready considered the argument advanced on behalf of the appel'ant and observed that the appellant may approach before respondents NQ. 1 & 2, in case any vacancy of stenographer arises in future snd if such request is made by the appe'lant, respondents No.1 & 2 shall consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the impugned order passed by 'earned District Judae aaainst him. 7. We find P,Q substsn.ce in the appea! and the same desen'es to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 'v-:-