High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/152/2020disposed off

Rajesh Kumar Preman v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-01-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 152 of 2020 Rajesh Kumar Preman S/o Shri Birjhu Ram Preman Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Terminated Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) Government Primary School Rengawahi, Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda, R/o Village-Michgaon Post Kumhari Tahsil And Police Station Manpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

2. The Collector District- Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

3. The District Education Officer District- Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh,

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Koylibeda District- Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Soumya Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/01/20

1. Heard.

2. The order under challenge in the present writ petition is dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the earlier round of litigation when the petitioner was terminated, it was subject of challenge

before this Court, wherein this Court in a bunch of writ petitions wherein the present petitioner was also a party on 14th of March, 2008 has passed the orders whereby the termination was set aside. After such order was passed a subsequent order dated 13.10.2008 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, almost 12 years have passed and it is 2020. There is no specific reason has been shown as to why the exorbitant delay of 12 years has occurred. The delay as has been explained in the writ petition also do not specify the reason to condone the delay. The petition having been preferred after 11-12 years and the petitioner having approached to this Court earlier cannot be said to be unaware of the proceeding. In view of this the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay & laches.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge gouri