1 2026:CGHC:14580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2185 of 2021 * - Ravi Vaishnav S/o Shri C.D. Vaishnav, Aged About 33 Years R/o LIG-370 Block No. 26, Dindayal Housing Board Kaurinbhata, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate, Urban Administration And Development, Through The Director, Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Utkarsh Shrivas, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondents to grant approval of petitioners Absorption in the post of AG-III under Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018 by approving the recommendation dated 13/12/2019 and 06/07/2020 (Annexure P/1) and not cancel the order dated 27/01/2021 (Annexure P/5). Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.30 11:37:00 +0530 2 10.2 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Utkarsh Shrivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of driver under respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25.02.2014. The petitioner moved an application for absorption of his services on the post of Assistant Grade-III on 29.05.2019 and a memo was sent by the Corporation to the State Government for approval on 13.12.2019. It is contended that vide order dated 27.01.2021 a conditional order of absorption was passed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 3. He would contend that respondent No. 3 without affording any opportunity of hearing vide order dated 25.03.2021 cancelled the said order. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that a conditional absorption order was passed by respondent No. 3 on 27.01.2021 and it was cancelled vide order dated 25.03.2021. He would contend that the order dated 25.03.2021 has been placed along with the return filed on 10.12.2021. It is also contended that the petitioner has not challenged the said order. He would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of driver. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the instant petition. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that though a recommendation was made for absorption of the services of the petitioner subject to approval from the State Government and in absence of approval, the order of conditional absorption dated 27.01.2021 was subsequently cancelled 3 vide order dated 25.03.2021 and said order has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. However, the the petitioner would be at liberty to assail order dated 25.03.2021, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti