Dismissed

Laxmi Naidu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WPS/6810/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by five petitioners challenging their termination from contractual posts under the Mission Vatsalya scheme and seeking quashment of a recruitment advertisement. The court held that since the recruitment process via the challenged advertisement had already been completed and the posts filled, no effective relief could be granted. Consequently, the petition was found not maintainable at the motion stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage as not maintainable.

Laxmi Naidu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶3

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.17 17:40:56 +0530

CGHC010345272026

2026:CGHC:40573

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

WPS No. 6810 of 2026

¶9

1 - Laxmi Naidu W/o Amit Naidu Aged About 43 Years R/o 162/k Churh Road Shanti Nagar Ward No. 25 Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶10

2 - Prem Pushpa Thakur C/o Rajendra Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o 243 Taraipara Chatrapati Shivaji Ward Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶11

3 - Nityawati Kashyap D/o Kadi Ram Kashyap Aged About 34 Years R/o 193 Parpanaka Para Guru Govindsingh Ward No. 36 Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶12

4 - Punam Yadav W/o Raghunath Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Mandigudapara Binta Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶13

5 - Aishwarya Mali D/o Nakul Ram Mali Aged About 30 Years R/o 345 Schoolgali Ganganagar Ward No. 23 Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶14

... Petitioner(s)

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

¶18

2 - The Director, Directorate Of Women And Child Development Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶19

3 - The Collector / Chairman District Child Protection Committee Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶20

4 - The District Programme Officer Women And Child Development Department Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶21

5 - Srijan Samajik Sanstha Through Director Add. Reg. Office Mamta Nagar Gali No. 05 Panchshil Colony Rajnandgaon Distt Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶25

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

17/09/2026

¶28

By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2/Director, Directorate of Women and Child Development, inviting applications for various posts under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (Mission Vatsalya) for contractual appointment, as well as quashment of the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P/1).

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been rendering their services under the

¶30

¶31

respondent department for several years, but instead of considering their absorption/regularization, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2025 inviting fresh applications for various posts under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (Mission Vatsalya) on contractual basis. He further submits that pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.03.2026, the services of the petitioners have been terminated and they have been directed to hand over charge to the department. It is, therefore, submitted that the action of the respondents in replacing the petitioners, who have rendered services for several years, by fresh appointees is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence.

¶32

On the other hand, learned State counsel, submits that though initially the contractual appointment to the petitioners was given by the respondent No.5 which is private society but subsequently the said services was taken over by the State Government. He further submits that the contractual engagement of the petitioners was discontinued pursuant to the decision of the State Government to fill up the said posts through a fresh recruitment process by inviting applications from eligible candidates. He submits that the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2025 has already been completed and the posts in question have since been filled and as such nothing remains in this petition for adjudication with regard to the legality and validity of the impugned advertisement.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

¶35

As per the submissions made by learned State counsel and the material placed on record, it appears that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.12.2025 has already been completed and the posts in question have been filled and as such nothing remains in this petition for adjudication in respect of the legality and validity of the impugned advertisement. Even the contractual assignment was initially given to the petitioners by the respondent No.5, which is a private society, however the said services were subsequently taken over by the State Government, but the contractual assignment of the petitioners was discontinued consequent upon the decision of the respondent authorities to fill up the said posts through a fresh recruitment process by inviting applications from eligible candidates.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, particularly when the recruitment process has already been completed and the posts have been filled, no effective relief can now be granted to the petitioners in the present proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition, at this stage, is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself as not maintainable.

¶38

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶39

$. Bhilwar

Laxmi Naidu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Naidu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases