(o '^ C. F •t^t- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) No. 33?0 / 2010 PETITIONER ^ ^ Sundar Kumar Bhattacharjee S/o Sadhan Chandra Bhattacharjee, Aged about 37 years, R/o Q. No. E / 375 ~^>--^ ...""' Pandit Deendayal Uppadhaya Nagar .. ^-;'"*irfl'^""*"^ .,""""" T^^^^"^.""^ Housing Board Colony Kohka Bhil.ii .^e^^-^"^^' x^--:: ^ '-9 RESPONDENTS Durg (CG). VERSUS /' State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG). Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, C/168 Tagor Nagar Raipur(CG). Chief Executive Officer Districl Panchayat Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 ^'TCT'^^TFTRTST, "^it^PT^, fs<<riiy^< ^^^^^M^w.^ 3'ff^T'q^^ ('^35^) ^200 w^y ^>T'f^tw ^SH 3?T^T ^ryN? wnw^na^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Sl 08-07-2010 ^N<?pwh ^R^if ^ fezt ^f^R ^3tRm3TT^T irivastava. J. Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel for the Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel [\ copy. petitioner. .awyer for the State on advance With the consent of learned coijinsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. Petitioner has fited this petition| the respondents to appoint the petitioil seeking issuance of a direction to ler on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-11 in Zila Panchayat, Durg. Learned counsel for the petitiojier submits that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of ^hiksha Karmi Gracte-11, pursuant to advertisement dated 15-01-2008 and ihe was allow^j to appear in the process of selection. Resutts were dec^ared on Internet, which is annexed as Annexure P-5, in which, the petition^r was placed in the setection fist at S.No.54. A letter was sent by the res^ petitioner requiring him to appear in the| iondent No.3 on 30-01-2009 to the counseling on 10-02-2009, pursuant to whteh, the petittener appeared for| counseling on the said date and submitted his consent for appointment t{3 the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-lt vtele Annexure P-10. Grievance of th^ petitioner is that even though the petitioner was ailowed to partbipate in 1pie counseting and he has submitted his consent. no order of appointment h^s been issued so far. It is submitted that as the petitioner was selecte<jl and called for counseling, the respondents were obtiged under the lav^ to appoint the petitioner on the post ofShiksha Karmi Grade-11. It is submitt^d that the respondents are assuring the petitioner, but not given any appoii almost last 1 & % year, only assurani litment. It is also submitted that from ;e is being held out, but neither the <2-\ 1- ^s.^.''-?^ ;y.-."^ ^^...-^,XI.HC—78.. -STT^T ^T f^rNr ^TT W^T^TRNT •tl- Tumane <nwffww^ '3'S? ^ll^id-M, ^Tll-H^Ko, fo|dl-(-l!4,< ri^.^.:i&^.:.!3>l.L'b/../.?.-^200 ^Tf^T 'q^T (llolf^<sj<^T) ^TTW^cT^n^T •2^— po^ts petitioner is being appointed nor ar| inaction. From the select list placed that on the basis of merit, the petitiort just above Hemant Kumar Sahu. did submit his letter of consent, record to show as to how many has been made as to whether from tlt been made. It is trite that mere appointment. In the absence of th^i facts, petition is misconceived. Th^ submitted any application in writing In view of foregoing, 1 am r) this stage. It would be open for thej authorities by making representation With the aforesaid observatic^ •jy reason is being assigned for such jsn record by the petitioner, it is fbund (er was placed at the bottom of the tist Purjsuant to letter of counseling, petitioner ho^ever, there is no materiat placed on were advertised nor any averment fe said select list, any appointment has ^Rferit7T ^TF^if "^ fe^t <Pt^K ^T 3fRw 37T^I selei|;tion does not confer any right of ^re being proper pleading of relevant petitioner has neither pleaded nor b^fore the competent authority. )ot inclined to entertain thte petition at 1 petitioner to approach the concerned for redressal of his grievance. ^n, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^^ 4--