HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR SiNGLE BENGH : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. PETITIONER <),•!•> V,P,Ma.41i6joflSL93 Rajkumar Singh Thakur, S/o Shri G.S. Thakur, Aged about 33 years, Occupation -* Assistant Engineer, Bilaspur Development Authority, Bilaspur(M.P.) VERSUS . 1. State of Chhattlsgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Housing Environment, Mantralay, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Municipal Corporation, Through-ltsCommissioner, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (GC3) 3. THeChief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Biiaspyr Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Shri P.R. Choudhary, Exgcutive Engineer, Bilaspur Development Authority, Bilaspur (M.P.) Wntpetition underArticies 226/227 oftheConstitytlonjrf.ln^ Present: Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G. for the State Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for respondents 2 and 3. QRALORDER {Passed on 17"'Apiril, 2007) The petitioner in this petition filed under Articies 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India has sought for the follQwing reliefs. They are : " i) To quash the order dated 06.03.1580 and 7.4.1993 (Annexure P/8 and Annexure - P/16 respectively) as illegai, arbitrary, discriminatory eto. - i'i 's- w. ii) For a direction to fhe responderits to treat respondent No.4 as Sub Engineer. iii) For a direction to the respondentsl to3 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next promotional post of Executive Engineer." (2) At the time ofhearingofthe wntpetition, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he would nof press Tbr reliefs No 1 and 2. A memo in that regard is also fiied before this Courtand the same is taken on record. (3) Learned counsel for ths petitioner also submits that now, he would file appropriate representation beforethe respondents 2 and 3 to consider the case of tte petitioner for promotion td ihe next pnsmotional post. He ftjrther "requests this Court to dir§Gf ihe respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation and pass ah appropriate order in accordance withiaw. (4) The aboye submis^ion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, theifpllowing: ORDER. 1) Memofiledbythepetitioneristakenonrecord. 2) Reliefe !Mo.1 and2afe rejected. ? 3) The petitioner is permitted to makean ;appropriate representetion before respondents 2 and 3 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer within a month'stime fromtoday. Ifsuch representatiort is .1:| L fited within the time so granted, the respondente Np^ 2 and 3 shai! consider the saroe in accordance with lawiahd 33psnrjaiio -/PS •A|BUjpJ003B pSJSpJQ (f? •etug 0} eiui} luojj lueuiujSAOQ e}Bi9 eqi Aq psnssi sjeinojio snoyeA ii'