Order dismissing a writ petition challenging a university seniority list as infructuous due to the petitioner's retirement and subsequent delay.
The petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's retirement and delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t
^^ ]^5^ /^
©
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(S)NO. 6^°^ OF 2009
PETITIONER
Hakimuddin, aged about 58 years,S/o Late Akbar Ali, Junior Superitndent, Pandit Ravi Shanker Shukla University Raipur R/o Amanaka, Kukurbeda, Raipur (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :1.
^r^
i^>^
^
.^.xy
2.
^^x
.^^"""
^- 3.
4.
Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla University Through its Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla University, Raipur (C.G.)
M.K.Bhide aged about 48 years, S/o Late Shri Dattatraya Bhide,
Mahipal Soni, aged about 48 years,S/oShriHoriLalSoni,
K.P.Rathore, aged about47 years, S/o Shri Saheb Lal Rathore,
No. 2 to 4 are working as Junior Superintendent, Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla University,
Raipur(C.G.)
WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA
tf9-
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: 'rion'ble Shri Prashant Kumar iViishra, J, Writ Petition (S) No. 6902/2009
PETITIONER : Hakimuddin
Versus
RESPONDENTS : Pt Ravj Shanker Shukla University and others
Apoearancs:
Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Neeraj Choubey, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri RX. Kesharwani, counsei for respondent No.2.
WRJT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTJTUTION OF iNDJA
ORAL ORDER
(6.02.2012)
This writ petition has been filed on 20/11/2009 seeking the followjng reliefs:"1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to cali for the records pertajning to subj'ect matter of the petition.
(2) Learned counsei for the petitioner wouid submit that the respondents No.2 to 4 were working as storekeeper and there was no channel of promotion from the post of storekeeper to the post of UDC-Section Officer-Junior Superintendent and yet the said respondents were promoted from time to time on the said posts and ultimately promotions were made on the post of Junior Superintendent on 16/04/2008 (Annexure P-14) and in consequence thereto gradation list was published vide Annexure P-1.
(3) The promotion of respondents No.2 to 4 on the post of UDC-1 in January, 1998 and thereafter on the post of Section Officer was never challenged by the petitioner and even in this writ petition their promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent js not under chailenge. The only reiief claimed is that the petitioner be placed above the respondents No.2 to 4 in the gradation list.
(4) Admittediy, the petitioner has retired in May, 2011 and since after publication of the gradation list no further promotion to a higher post from the post of Junior Superintendent has taken place.
(5) In view of the above, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous by lapse of time after retirement of the petitioner.
(6) It is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
°v^ a~
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking seniority placement in a gradation list is maintainable after the petitioner's retirement.
Whether the petition has become infructuous due to the lapse of time and subsequent inaction on promotions.
Hakimuddin
Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla University
M.K. Bhide
Mahipal Soni
K.P. Rathore
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
