HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DSVISION BENCH CORAM ; HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLE SHRi D.R. DESHMUKH, ^. Aj3peiiant Petltioner Writ Apoeal No.90 OF 2007 Raj Kumar Bajrang, S/o Shri Sona Ram Bajrang, aged about 36 years, Caste ~ Suryavanshi, Schedule Caste, Assistant Engineer Elce./Mech. Heavy Machinery Division, Off. Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalasay, Project Rudri, Distt. Dhmatari (C.G) Versus 1. Secretapy, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer in Chief C/o Enginesr in Chief, Water Resources Department "Shihava Bhawan", Rafpur(C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer Mahanadl Jaiasay Project EEec./iViech. Hea^ Machines Division, Raipur(C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer Eiec./Mech. Heavy Machinery Divlsion, Rudri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. Shri S.L. Vchariya, Executive Engineer, Eiec./Mech. Heavy Machinery Dlvision, P!anner(C.G.) Appea! under Section 2(1) ofthe High Court of Chhattlsaarh fAppea! to Division BenchyAct Present: Shri DN Prajapati, oounsel for the appellant. -ORALORDER (Passed on 3©BIAprij,2007) The foiiowlng orai order of the Court was passed by H.L.Dattu.CJ. : Tne appeitant / petitioner was before this Court on an eariier occasion In W.P.No. 6409/2006 seeking for certain reiiefs. At the snstance ofthe petitioner this Court ^/as pieased to dispose of the writ petitlon with liberty to the petitioner, if he so desires to make an appropriate representation before the State Government for correctson of the gradation !ist and aiso for incorporating his qualifications in his ser^ice records. (2) After dlsposa! of the writ petition, it appears that the petstioner had filed his objection to the provisional gradation tist prepared by the respondents. it is his grievance before this Court that the respondents have not consldered his objectlons and alsc have not assigned proper ranking to him in the flnal senlority iist. Therefore, he v»'asbefore this Court in WP No.1201/2007. (3) Learned Single Judge by his order dated 01.03.2007 has rejected the writ petltion by Imposing cost of Rs.500/-, payabie to the Chhattisgarh High Court Lega! Services Committee. Aggrieved by the said order passed by iearned Singie Judge, the present appeal ss filed. (4) Shri Prajapati, iearned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondents without considering the objections filed by the appellant have continued to assign the same ranking to the appeiiant in the gradation list prepared. (5) The emptoyer has iiberty to prepare the gradation list of his officers by assigning proper ranking to them. iffor any reason, any employee is aggrieved by the ranking so assigned, he has a right to object for the ranking assigned in the gradation list. !f forany reason, that objection is not considered by'the employer and continues to asslgn him the ver/ sarne ranking as that was refiected in the provisionaS gradation tist, he is expected to question the oorrectness or othewise of the ranking assigned to him in the final gradation ilst. (6) !n the instant oase, the appe!!ant without even questioning the fina! gradation !ist preparsd by the employer is oniy harplng on the issue that the respondents have not considered his representation and therefore, the v^rit Court shouid entertain his vvnt petition. (7) In our vievv', the submission made by iearned counset for the appeiiant is devoid of any merit vv/hat so ever. As we have a!ready stated, if for any reason, the appellant is aggrieved by the ranking assigned to him in the gradation list, he is expected to question the said list before an appropriate forum. (8) !n that viev^ of the matter, we deciine to entertain this writ appeal. Aocordingiy, the appeal 1s rejected. Ordered accordingiy. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- ^ilroRaosahebDeshmukh Judge