← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2494/2015dismissed

Rajeshwar Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-07-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2494 of 2015

1. Rajeshwar Rajput S/o Sevkaran Rajput, Aged About 25 years R/o Gram Umariya, Tahsil Bilha, Thana Bilha, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Loknirman Vibhag Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Executive Engineer, Office Of Executive Engineer, Loknirman Vibhag B/S Sambhag S.No.1 Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Superintendent Engineer Loknirman Vibhag Bilaspur Mandal, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Loknirman Vibhag Sub Block Bilha District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri R.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 29/07/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's case pertaining to his appointment with further prayer for allowing the petitioner to resume the duties as Gardener.

2.

In the writ petition the petitioner has made a statement that he was appointed by the respondents as a Gardener in the year 2009, however, he has been removed/disengaged in December, 2013 without assigning any reason and despite requests the respondents are not reinstating him.

3.

The petitioner has not filed any supporting documents by which it can be gathered that the petitioner was appointed even as a daily wager. Except for one document, which is an application dated 29-1-2014 for appointment as Gardener, there is no other document in support of the petition. In this document also, the petitioner has not mentioned as to in which department or office he has earned five years experience as Gardener.

4.

The writ petition is as vague as it could be, therefore, it is not worth to entertain. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri