Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 21]

Chattisgarh High Court

Santosh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgahr 37 ... on 18 May, 2018

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

                                                                                            NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                               WPS No. 3818 of 2018

                 Santosh Sahu S/o Late Shri Kishorilal Sahu Aged About 40 Years Occupation -
                 Service ( Patwari ) R/o Village - Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh
                 Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                                    Versus

              1. State Of Chhattisgahr Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi
                 Bhawan Mantralay, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

              2. The Commissioner / Director, ( Land Records ) Indrawati Bhawan District Raipur
                 Chhattisgarh.

              3. The Principal , Revenue Inspector Training School, Seepat Road, Near Apollo
                 Road Rajkishore Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                  ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 18/05/2018 Petitioner's grievance is that the respondent authorities are sending Patwaris only for four months' training in place of 9 months' training.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court how the decision taken by the respondent to shorten the period of training would affect the terms and condition of services of the petitioner. Therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, that issue cannot be examined.

3. The petitioner does not seem to be affected. It is not a case that he has been compelled to complete 9 months' training and another group has been facilitated with shorter period of four months.

4. Therefore, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

                 SD/-                                                      Sd/-
                                                              (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)
                                                                        Judge
Deepti