Smt. Pinky Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3581 of 2018 Smt. Pinky Patel W/o Shri Gajpati Patel, Aged About 26 Years Presently Working As Cashier, Nagar Panchayat, Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhavan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Joint Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Nagar Panchayat Basna, Through, Chief Municipal Officer, Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/12/2018

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the advertisement dated 12.02.2018 published for filling up of the post of Accountant by way of direct recruitment in Nagar Panchayat, Basna.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is already working in the department as a Cashier and was entitled for promotion to the post of Accountant, however the respondents had published the advertisement for filling up of the post by way of direct recruitment, which could have been detrimental to the career prospects of the petitioner.

3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein in paragraphs No. 2 & 3 they have categorically stated that in the advertisement dated 12.02.2018, for filling up of the post of Accountant from Nagar Panchayat, Basna has been deleted, thus the said apprehension of the petitioner, so far as the vacant post of Accountant to be filled up from the advertisement under challenge does not survive any further.

4. So far as the promotion, which the petitioner is seeking for, the respondents in their reply have stated that the case of the petitioner was already considered for promotion by the District Selection Committee and the recommendation of the District Selection Committee has already been sent for proper approval as is required under Section 94(4) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 to the appropriate authority and the recommendation of the petitioner is awaited approval.

5. Given the facts that the matter of the petitioner has already been considered by the District Selection Committee for promotion, the matter being pending before the competent authority for its approval, this Court does not see any good reason, why the authorities would not take an any early decision on the said proceedings.

6. Expecting an early disposal of the proceedings by the competent authority, the present writ petition in its present form, as of now stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved