Writ appeal challenging dismissal of a service petition over a Deputy Director appointment. As the appointment had since been cancelled, the respondent reverted to his original post and retired, and the appellant also retired, the court disposed of the appeal as infructuous without deciding merits.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 259 of 2019
Smt. Kishwer Begum, W/o. Shri A.S. Faroqui, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. House No. HUDCO 349 MIG-II, Bhiali, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.1),
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.2)
3. Shri Ram Niwas Singh, S/o. Shri Ram Iqbal Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. MIG-II, 14, Sector- 3, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (Respondent No. 3)
4. Shri Hemant Upadhyay, S/o. Shri Y.C. Upadhyay, Aged About 54 Years, District Education Officer, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4)
5. Smt. R. Bambra, W/o. Shri G.S. Bambra, Aged About 68 Years, R/o. DPP 19 EAC (Collectorate) Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 5)
6. Smt. Sunita Sao, W/o. Shri Chaggan Lal Sao, Aged About 53 Years, R/o. PRT Colony, Mahadev Ghat, Amleshwar, Patan Road (Via), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 6)
7. Dr. R.P. Yadu, S/o. Shri H.L Yadu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalay, Dongargarh, Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 7)
---Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das & Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocates
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate
2
(Division Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board (02.02.2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1538 of 2009.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the petition by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that the respondent No.3 has been appointed on the post of Deputy Director on 26.07.2008 and by order dated 26.11.2020, his order of appointment dated 26.07.2008 has been cancelled and thereafter, he was retired on 28.11.2020.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
4. The fact remains that the order of appointment dated 26.07.2008 has been cancelled by order dated 26.11.2020, as admittedly it has been cancelled and the
3
respondent No.3 has been reverted to his original post of Assistant Professor (NCERT) and thereafter, he had retired on 28.11.2020. The appellant has also retired from service. In that view of the matter, at present, we deem it inexpedient to decide the writ appeal on merits.
5. Accordingly, in view of lapse of time as the date of appointment is 26.07.2008 and the appellant has also retired from service on 28.11.2020, the writ appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
Ashok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal remained maintainable given the cancellation of respondent No.3's 2008 appointment and retirement of both parties.
Smt. Kishwer Begum
State Of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
Shri Ram Niwas Singh
Shri Hemant Upadhyay
Smt. R. Bambra
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
