Disposed

Smt. Soni Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Feb 2024WPS/1153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to submit a representation to the District Education Officer regarding inadvertent wrong cadre allocation. Respondents directed to decide representation within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit representation; direction to decide within 30 days.

What the court decided

Smt. Soni Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition (S) No.1153 of 2024

¶4

Smt. Soni Kashyap W/o Sanjeet Kashyap, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Mahaveer Ganj, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG),

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,district Raipur (Cg.)

¶8

Director, Public Instruction, Directorate, Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (CG)

¶9

Director, Tribal Welfare, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶10

Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)

¶11

District Education OfÏcer, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

Block Education OfÏcer, Block Ramchandrapur, District BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.),

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State : Shri Suyashdhar Diwan, Dy. G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board

¶16

23/02/2024

¶17

After arguing at some length, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.5 raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition and in turn respondent No.5 may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with the law and relevant rules/polices within any stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶18

Learned State Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

On bare perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it is clear that virtually the petitioner is the employee of Tribal Welfare Department (T) Cadre and inadvertently the name of the petitioner has been included under the School Education Department (E) Cadre. The said mistake has been done by the respondent authority for which the petitioner is not responsible.

¶20

In view of the above submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, and on perusal of the documents annexed with petition, at this stage, the present writ petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation raising all the grounds as raised in this petition before respondent No.5 within ‘two weeks’ from today and in the event of submission of the said representation, respondent No.5 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with the law and further taking into consideration the fact that mistake has been done on the part of the respondent authorities and not on the part of the petitioner, thereafter, pass a fresh order without influenced by the impugned order.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶23

Prakash

Smt. Soni Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Soni Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.P. Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fanibhushan Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Faneshvar Yadav Vs General Manager (H.R.)

Swapnil Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh