1 2025:CGHC:50584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11562 of 2025 • Mithlesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Yashwant Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Paraswani, Post- Birkoni, District - Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal And Scheduled Castes Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. The Under Secretary, Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3. The Commissioner, Tribal And Scheduled Castes Development Department, Block-4 D, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur., District Raipur C.G. 4. The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities 2 whereby even there is a vacant post of Hostel Warden at District Mahasamund in Boys hostels just to accommodate their own candidates the said vacancy has not been published but same is still vacant in district level and same has been forwarded for division level without appreciating the circular issued by the State Government. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Hostel Warden Grade-D vide order dated 10-8-2016 and thereafter he was promoted from Metric Level-6 Grade Pay Rs. 5200-20,200+2400 to Metric Level-8 Grade Pay of Rs.9300-34,800+4200 vide order dated 10-6-2025. Thereafter, 33 candidates who belong to District Mahasamund have been promoted and appointed under the category of Class-C vide order dated 12-8-2025, wherein the name of the petitioner has not been considered which itself seems to be mala fide and not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent authority on new grounds available to him. 4. Permission is granted. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner. 6. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.10.13 10:59:00 +0530