Dr. Vinita Sonwani And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7091 of 2011

1. Dr. Vinita Sonwani, Aged about 32 years, D/o. Dr. D.S. Sonwani, Working as Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, At Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Amsena, Block Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o. In front of Police Station Tikarapara, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Dr. Shankar Prasad Vaish, Aged about 37 years, S/o. Tej Lal Vaish, Working as Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, At Ayush Wing, District Hospital, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh R/o. Pendra, District Bilaspur.

3. Dr. Kishan Lal Thakur, Aged about 42 years, S/o. Bed Nath Thakur, Working as Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, At Ayush Wing, District Hospital, Kabeerdham, District Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh R/o. Village and Post Office Kuthrel, District Durg Chhattisgarh

4. Dr. Laxmi Markande, Aged about 32 years, D/o. L.D. Markande, Working as Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, At Ayush Wing, District Hospital, Durg Chhattisgarh, R/o. Qr. No. 10/A, Street 43, Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, Through: Secretary, H.Q. Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 :

Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/09/2018

1. The challenge in the present writ petition was to the selection process on the post of Specialist Physician (Ayush Wing/Therapy Centre) Specialist (College/Hospital).

2. The recruitment process was initiated in the year 2009. By efflux of time, the recruitment has all been concluded and appointments also

to the selected candidates have been provided. None of the selected candidates are a party in the present writ petition.

3. At this juncture, if we allow the writ petition it would be adverse to the interest of those persons, who have been appointed and have joined the services. Therefore, the present writ petition at this juncture without impleading the necessary parties would not be maintainable.

4. Reserving the right of the petitioners, if they are still aggrieved, to challenge the subsequent developments, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved