Dismissed¶16

Dr. Ankita Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Dec 2025WPS/2395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (WPS) before High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur involving State of Chhattisgarh (Health/Family Welfare/Medical Education), Director Medical Education (Ayush Wing) and Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission; interim relief earlier granted led to the petitioner being interviewed, but she was unsuccessful; petition ultimately dismissed for want of instructions; no statutory provision or precedent discussed; no ruling on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Ankita Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:61375

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2395 of 2023

¶6

1 - Dr. Ankita Upadhyay W/o Dr. Rakesh Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o E-538, 11 Acres, Near Radha Krishna Mandir, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Director Medical Education (Ayush Wing), Directorate Of Medical Education At Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	: Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
For Resp. No. 3	: Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

¶12

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

16/12/2025

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no instructions from the petitioner. She further submits that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court granting the relief sought in the petition, the respondent authority conducted the interview of the petitioner; however, it appears that the petitioner did not succeed in the said interview.

¶16

In view of above submission, the petition is dismissed for want of instructions.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶19

Shayna JUDGE

Dr. Ankita Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Ankita Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Agharaiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhugna Mahanand Vs Ashwani Kharsal

Behru Chhura Vs Ashwani Kharsal

Smt. Krishna Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramcharan Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhwar Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited