Dismissed

Smt.Kavita Choubey v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2013WP/1438/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a stay order on a teacher's appointment and subsequent cancellation orders due to irregularities in selection. The court found the petition lacked substance as the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation orders and failed to substantiate her claim for absorption without proof of service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as lacking any substance; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Smt.Kavita Choubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

v /
[C Qtgek

¶3

BEFOREE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CBEITTISGARH AT BILASPvR
(CHHATTISGARB)

¶4

lQEg
1N TEE ummwER or w.P. /2002

¶5

PETITIONERs

¶6

'2,
snnn nmNETA cao
Iwmm amovw 27 IEARS,
w/o. sag: suusnn.
caouamr, 333mm or
Jnnmn qwnRrER nmu 2L
snmnon-I smauxma umsAR,
anxyun, nlswnicw
RAIPUR (cnanrrisennn).

¶7

vtnsus

¶8

¶9

swATE or cnaATTIsGARn,
TnRouoa : pnxucxPAL
sEcRzmARY, Pancanxam 1mm,
nunAL' DEVELOPMENT,
MANTRALAIA, n.x.s.
Baawnn, RAIPUR
(cannrmxsenna).
PRIucxPAL SECRETARY,
tnuunw;mmD.ADMINIsrRATION
Inmnmmmwmaur ntznnmnzur,
MmNTRALAYA, n.x.s.
nannnu, RAIPUR
(cannrrxsenan).

¶10

comrssxom mmxcnm‘.
coupoanmron,' rauunnn
Dxswnxcr RAIPUR
(caaATrIseAnn).
4. COLLEcroR, Rnlpua,
DISTRIcT - nAIPUR
(cannmrxsenkns,
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2fg/227 OF TEE CONSTIWTION OF
'
INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER IN IIATURE O TS OF
WS/CERTATORARI OR ANY OT ORDER IN OF WRITS.

¶11

¢ The petitioner respectfully^begs to submit as under: -

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶13

yr7

¶14

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶15

W.P. No. 1438 of 2002

PETITIONER

Smt. Kavita Choubey

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of CG and others

¶20

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Pa'nel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1, 2 & 4. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶21

O R D E R (017,.09201³⁾

¶22

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.12.1999 (Annexure^{P/1)wherebytheorderofappointmentofthe} petitioner on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-ii has been stayed.

¶23

‘2. Case of the petitioner‘ in brief, is that on 25.7.1997 (Annexure P/1) she was appointed as Shikshakarmi for the academic session on the fixed honorarium of Rs.1600/— and later on for regular appointment, she was interviewed vide call letter dated 2.7.1998 (Annexure P/3). According to the petitioner,^thoughshewas placed at Sl.No.1 in the select Iist, but no appointment order was issued in her favour and therefore, on 12.3.1999 she made a representation (Annexure P/4) and ,sought for copy of the select list, which was refused to her on 13.4.1999 (Annexure P/5). Further case of the petitioner is that number 1 of complaints were made in relation to appointment of Shikshakarmis l and therefore, a committee was constituted by the Collector asking the 1‘ Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to submit its report. Pursuant

¶24

g zc

¶25

thereto, a report was submitted by the Committee wherein it was pointed^{outthattherewere} number of irreguiarities in appointments of ‘ Shikshakarmi Grade—ll and Grade-III.

¶26

The petitioner made a representation to the Mayor on 6.3.1999 requesting that the academic session is Iikely to be completed and therefore, she be appointed as Shikshakarmi. Vide Annexure P/8, the State Govt. directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, to look into the irreguiarities committed in the appointment of Shikshakarmis, fix the responsibility on the officers/employees concerned and to send a report in this regard. It was aiso mentioned in the said letter (Annexure^{P/8)thatappointment} of the persons which has been made illegally be canceled with immediate effect and in their place the eligible candidates be appointed as Shikshakarmi. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said letter, on 22.10.1999 (Annexure P/9) she was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-ll. it has been pleaded by the petitionerⁱⁿ para^5.7of the writ petition that as her appointment was canceled vide Annexure P/10, she has filed the present petition. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the main contesting party is respondent No.3 i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and no relief has been sought against the State Govt. He further submits that Vide Annexure P/1, only stay effect of operation of the and orders pertaining to promotion, appointment, regularization etc. passed .^duringthe period^15.10.1999 to 18.11.1999 was granted, whereas vide ‘ Annexure R-3/6 and R—3/7 all the proceedings conducted by thel Municipal Corporation including appointment on the post of, e i Shikshakarmi have been canceled, but those orders have not beent

¶27

challenged by the petmoner and therefore the petmon Is liable to be dlsmlssed on this ground alone

¶28

On behalf of respondent No.3, it has been argued that appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary in nature. lnitially her appointment was for one academic session and thereafter, though ’appointm’ent^orderissued in her favour on 22.10.1999, but pursuant to that order she had never worked on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-ii. He submits that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that she ever worked as Shikshakarmi subsequent to the second appointment order dated 22.10.1999. He futther submits that in the relief clause, the petitioner has not prayedfor cancellation of orders Annexure R~3/6 and R-3/7 and instead has prayed for absorption to the post of Shikshakarmi Gradell and as such the petition being misconceived Is liable to be dismissed

¶29

lt has been further pomted out that in para 5.7 of the petition, the petitioner has pleaded that vide Annexure P/10 her appointment has been canceled, but Annexure P/10 is, in fact, a representation of the petitioner and not the order canceling the petitioner's appointment.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No 3 further argues that after . appomtment of the petitioner an enquiry was conducted and number of irregularities were found in the selection procedure and therefore the entire proceedings including recommendation for promotion and, appointment of certain employees were‘canceled vide Annexure R-3/6. j

¶31

l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the: material available on’record. ‘

¶32

¶33

In para 5.7 of the writ petition, though the petitioner has pleaded that vide Annexure P/10 her appointment has been canceied, but .Annexure^{P/10isinfact.arepresentationsubmittedbythe} petitioner^to respondent No.3. Moreover, the petitioner has not chaiienged the orders (Annexure R-3/6 and R-3/7) canceling the appointment of the petitioner. in the relief clause also, the petitioner has prayed for absorption of her services, but has utterly failed to point out as to how she can be absorbed against the post of Shikshakarmi Grade—ii. She has also prayed for cancellation of appointment of those Shikshakarmis who were not eligible, but no such pleading has been made in the petition, nor those persons have been impleaded in the writ petition as respondents. That apart, vide Annexure R—3/6. the stay order 2.12.1999 (Annexure P/1) has been confirmed and all the proceedings dated 25.9.1998 of the Departmental Promotion Committee have been set aside. However, there is no challenge to the order dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure^R-3/6)bythe petitioner. Even the petitioner^{hasnotrebuttedthesubmissionsmadebytherespondents} in their return and no rejoinder has been tiled by her.

¶34

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petition being without any substance deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶35

Sd/
! Pritinker Diwaker},
Judge
<br>‘H

Smt.Kavita Choubey v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kavita Choubey v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Rupesh Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section Vs Bholarao and Ors.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section Vs Pradeep Kumar Tiwari and Ors.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section Vs Panchuram Sahu and Ors.