/% 9;)xae; 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. N3 OF 2009 Stngle Bench / PETITIONER : J .L. Rathore S/o Shri L.S. Rathore Aged about’47 years Vill. 8a Post : Na Naour Khurd Tehsil : Sakti Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G. ) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Water Resources Department D.K.S.-Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2/ Chief Erigineer Hasdeo Bango Project Water Resources Department Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) / Mini Matha Bango Canal Division No.5 Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Shri D.R. Kumbhkar Assistant Grade—II Mini Matha Bango Canal Division No.5 Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Executive Engineer /, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA nd .Jf9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.91312009 PETH‘IONER J. L. Rathore Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattasgarh and others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) $inqie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. A‘qnihotrh J. \Jy' Present :- Shri Shri Vinod A. Deshmuk'n, V. Shridhar, counsel Pane! for the petitioner. Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Tv Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel for respondent No.4. GRAL GRDER (Passed on this 01 5* day of December, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 04-02-2009 (Annexure P/1) whereby charge of Senior Accounts Clerk has been withdrawn from the petitioner is bad in law, unjust and improper. Mr. Deshmukh further submits that the letter dated 01-07-2005 issued by the office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur clearly provides that the officers assigned to a particular work should not be disturbed within a period of three years. in the present case, the petitioner was initially given the work of Senior Accouny‘Cterkmvide order dated 07—10-2008(Annexure-P/4) passed by the respondent No.3 and before completion of three years, his work has been withdrawn from him and handed over to the respondent No.4. (3) Per contra, Shri A. V. Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 would submit that the respondent No.4 is the senior most Assistant Grade-ll in the office of respondent No.3 whereas the petitioner was initially appointed as Peon and he has been promoted to the \ m. 2,, w ‘ J post of Assistant Grade-m on 02-03—2005. Thus, in the present case, in presence and availability of a senior person, who has passed the departmental examination also earlier, a junior person cannot be assigned the important work of Senior Accounts Clerk. A letter dated 01-07-2005 (Annexure P/2) is not supported by any statutory provision, the same is a mere instruction to have uniformity in assigning the work to qualified persons, similarly situated, (4) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 adopts the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. it is evident that the petitioner has no right to the particular assignment or to the post. Admittediy, the petitioner is posted as Assistant Grade-ill and the respondent No.4 is an Assistant Grade-ll. lndisputably, the work of accounting is an important function of the government department. Thus, there is no irregularity. So far as the letter dated 01-07-2005 (Annexure P/2) is concerned, it is a mere instruction to subordinate officer to foiiow the same wherein similarly situated persons/employees are posted to a particular work. in the present case, the respondent No.4 is more experienced and is having higher post i.e. Assistant Grade-ll than the petitioner who is still Assistant Grade-ill. l have not found any irregularity or iilegaiity warranting interference in the impugned order. (6) ln view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ’ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge i ‘ Tumane