Disposed¶24

Kuldeep Narayan Tripathi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Oct 2025WPS/1802/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court; WPS 1802/2017; Kuldeep Narayan Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Municipal Corporation Ambikapur; Shiksha Karmi Grade-I appointment 20/12/2011; no posting order; notification 10/03/2015 transfer of Municipal Corporation schools to School Education Department; M.Sc. Forestry vs Agriculture subject; delay and laches; representation to State within 45 days; decision within 120 days; disposed without merits; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; decided 15/10/2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.1 (State) within 45 days; the State to decide the representation in accordance with law within a further period of 120 days. No opinion expressed on merits. ¶24

Kuldeep Narayan Tripathi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:51462

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1802 of 2017

¶6

1 - Kuldeep Narayan Tripathi S/o Shri Ram Narayan Tripathi, Aged About 38 Years R/o C/o Bela Mishra, Near Shukla Colony, Gadel Para, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

2 - Municipal Corporation Ambikapur Through Its Commissioner District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate

¶13

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

15/10/2025

¶16

Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition – i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur to issue a

¶17

¶18

posting order in respect of the petitioner as per appointment order dated 20/12/2011. ii) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20/12/2011 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-I by respondent No.2, however, no posting order was given to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents but they turned a deaf ear. Therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the relief as claimed in the writ petition may be granted.

¶20

Return has been filed by respondent No.1 in which it has been stated that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and no substantial relief has been claimed from the State in the petition.

¶21

Return on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in which it has been stated that vide notification dated 10/03/2015 the entire school which are under supervision and control of the Municipal Corporation are registered with the School Education Department and such entire records of all the employees working in Municipal Corporation were handed over to School Education Department. He submits that the petitioner was inadvertently appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I Agriculture subject whereas he had qualification of M.Sc. Forestry and that is why posting was not granted. Even otherwise, the order of appointment was passed in the year 2011 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2017. Therefore, this petition may dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

¶22

Be that as it may, from perusal of record and from the pleadings made by the respective parties, this Court is inclined to dispose off this petition with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondent / State as according to the return filed by respondent No.2, the entire schools run by respondent No.2 has been vested with the State/respondent No.1. Representation be made to respondent No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which shall be decided by the State in accordance with law within a further period of 120 days.

¶23

¶24