HIGH COURT OF CH‘HATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2664 of 9006 Alvind Sam, aged about 54 yam-7S W/o Balmukund Soni, Presantly working as Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineen‘ng Service, Sub Division Sarangarh, Distn'ct Raigarh (C‘GJ Petitionar Versus Responrisnts 1. T116 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Sacretary, Panchayat AVam Rural Devslopment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) ' 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Departmnt, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 3. Joint Secretary, Panchayat Avam Rural Development Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (CG) ‘ 4. Executive Enginer, Rural Enginering Service, Raigarh Division, Raigarh (0G) 5. The Collector, Raigarh, District Rajgarh (C.G.) 6. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 7. Mahesh Kumar Shanna, Sub Enginer, Water Resources Department, through Chjf Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kharsiya, District Rajgarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UN DER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agm‘hotn' J.) Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Aclvocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondents N0. 1 to 6. 4 f” O R D E R (Passed on this 18th day of June, 2009) l. In this matter, the challenge is to the order dated 8.5.2006, whereby the respondent No.7, Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat Kharasia, district— Raigarh, was directed to take over the charge on the post of Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division, Salangarh, district- Raigarh. 2. Earlier, by order dated 9. 11.2005 (Annexure P/ 2), the petitioner, who was worldng on the post ofAssistant Engineer, was assigned w/ > € the additional charge of the post of Sub Divisional Omcer, Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division Sarangarh. 3. The impugned order was passed on 8.5.2006. The matter was taken up for hearing on 24.5.2006. Thereafter, the same was adjourned on 13.6.2006. No steps were taken by the petitioner for taking up the matter for hearing at the earliest. Now, after a period of about three years there is no point in examining the legality and validity of the impugned order, which deals with only change of the officiating charge of the post of Sub Divisional Officer from the petitioner to the respondent No.7. 4. In View of the foregoing, there is no merit in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Sdl- Sish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur / at