Arjun Mandavi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1500 of 2019

1. Arjun Mandavi S/o Shri Thokaru Ram Mandavi Aged About 50 Years R/o Police Line Karli, Q.No. 1/6, Police Station Geedam, District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

2. Shankar Lal Dhruv S/o Late M. R. Dhruv Aged About 50 Years R/o Post Karli, Tahsil Geedam, District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Inspector General Of Police Range Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Inspector General Of Police Range Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. Superintendent Of Police South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Shantam Awasthi, Advocate.

For respondent :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/03/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that petitioners are working on the post of Head Constable and are having all the requisite eligibility criteria for the promotion to the post of ASI, the

petitioners could not be promoted on account of there being not sufficient vacant post available in the category to which the petitioners belong in the promotion process convened in the year 2016.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits later on there was certain vacancies available in the District Bilaspur and for which the candidature, Head Constables working in the entire State were called upon. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners have also applied for the same but when the results were declared their names did not find place in the list.

3. On a query being put to the counsel for the petitioner, he fairly concedes that he does not have any proof in respect of the petitioners having submitted their application for consideration for Bilaspur, District.

4. Given the said facts, it is difficult to proceed further with the matter at this juncture. Counsel for the petitioner submits that like in the District Bilaspur, there could be vacancies available in other districts also the respondent, at least consider the case of the petitioner for those districts also as and when vacancies arises. This prayer of the petitioners is one which could be looked into only on the administrative side by the department. Record show that the petitioners have made a representation in this regard to respondent No. 3.

5. Given the said facts, let respondent No. 3 consider and decide the representation of the petitioner which is pending consideration before

respondent No. 3 at the earliest in accordance with the rules and regulations.

6.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Rohit JUDGE