é @/. 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. @Eé Of 2010 z/ Richard Verghese S/o Late Shri K. Verghese, aged about ........ 6a$§ 23$ 51 years, occupation— service .......\V Ki"..vc@ 1453 “33$ Work Palika Assistant Nigam, Bhilai, Grade 2, R/o Nagar G— 1/A, SADA Staff Quarter, Nehru Nagar , East Bhilai (CG). PETITIONER: Versus )» 1.“ .The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 3. Assistant Commissioner, Municipal, Corporation, Bhilai, ,, Durg (CG). ‘ 4. Shri Prakash Agrawal S/o Late Shri J.L. Agrawal, Revenue Sub Inspector, posted at Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, district Durg (CG). Shri Vinod Chandrakar S/o Shri Puran Lal Chandrakar, Revenue Sub Inspector, posted at Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). Chandra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Revenue Sub Inspector, posted at Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). Shri, Arun Singh S/o Shri Bhola Singh, Revenue Sub Inspector, posted at Nagar I Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). ‘ g RE$PONDENTS: > y? @‘ Shri D.P. Sharma S/o Shri Madan Sharma, Revenue Sub Inspector, posted at Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR in le Bench: Ho’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastav S n a WRIT PETITION (S) No.31 85/201 0 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: - Shri Rakesh Anthony. counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State on advanse copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05‘“ July, 2010) With the consent of the parties. the matter is taken up for hearing finauy, (2) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 03:02-2009 (Annexure P-1) and initiate further process for promotion. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to promote the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector. (3) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by Annexure P—1, respondents No.4 to 8, who were working in the Work Charged Establishment, have been granted regular appointment on the post of Revenue Sub inspector without considering petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector. Further submissiOn of Iearned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has continuously worked in the Property Tax Department as Revenue Inspector from November 1984 to May, 1999, respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Revenue l Inspector. It is further submitted that vide order dated 03-02-1999, certain Work- - Charged employees were promoted as Revenue Inspector which is reflected from Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that the employees shown in the J PETITIONER Richard Verghese Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh and Others gradation list (Annexure P-6), who were working as Revenue Inspectar on daily wage/ad hoc basis, were regularized without considering the case of the petitioner. .(4) It‘ is petitioner’s own case that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Semi Skilled Supervisor Grade-Ill and was later on appointed as Work-Charged Time Keeper with effect from 02-12-1985. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Work Assistant Grade-ll since 21-01 -1 997 and he was confirmed on the said post on 21-01 -1 999. A perusal of Annexure P-7 shows that persons appointed as Revenue Inspector between the period from 1977 to 1990. were made permanent from time to time till 1.999. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Assistant Grade-Ii in 1999. However, thereafter, the petitioner did not claim any such benefit of regularization on the post of Revenue Inspector. Though, it has been argued by referring to the contents of the representation dated 04-03-2009 (Annexure P-9) that earlier petition was filed which was withdrawn ahdthe petitioner was regularized as Assistant Grade-ll and the Court had directed for consideration for promotion, no such order is placed before this Court. There is no such pleading in this regard in this petition also. The petitioner acquiesced in his appointment and confirmation as Assistant Grade-ll and continued as such since 1999. A perusal of provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Nigam (Adhikariyo Tatha Sewako Ki Niyukti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharte) Rules, 2007, would show that the channel of promotion has been prescribed under Schedule-Ill appended to the said Rules wherein channel of promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-ll has been provided. In respect of the post of Assistant Grade-ll, next higher promotional post is Assistant Office ’ Superintendent/Assistant Grade-llAssistant Accounts Officer provided eligibility qualifications are fulfilled. The channel of promotion for the post of Revenue I Sub Inspector and Revenue Inspector as provided in the aforesaid Schedule shows that the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector (Moharrir) may be tilled up by direct promotion from amongst Daftari/Peon. The post of Revenue Sub Inspector may be tilled up by way of promotion from the post of Assistant . Revenue Inspector (Moharrir).and the post of Revenue Inspector may be tilled up by way of promotion from the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. Thus, the channel of promotion provided under the statutory rules does not'entitle the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector or Revenue Sub Inspector. Therefore, the relief claimed in the petition that the petitioner may be considered for promotion on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector or Revenue Inspector, cannot be granted. As such, the petitioner has no locus’standi to challenge the order of appointment (Annexure P-1) whereby certain employees working in Work-Charged establishment have been granted regular appointment on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector, particularly when it is not the case of the petitioner that he is willing to participate in open recruitment process for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector. ‘ ‘- Tumane (5) In view of foregoing, petition is summarily dismissed without notice to the ,\_ 5d;- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava jadge respondents.