Durga Prasad Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 4383 of 2015
1. Durga Prasad Sharma S/o Paremeshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, Presently Working as Cluster Academic CoOrdinator, School Center Kapadah, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
2. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Pandey, Aged About 40 Years, Working as Cluster Academic Co-Ordinator, School Center Pandariya, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, District and Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Kabirdham, P.S. Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
3. District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Kabirdham, P.S. Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
4. District Education Officer, Kabirdham, P.S. Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents And W.P.(S) No. 4446 of 2015 • Gurudutt Dubey S/o Uma Dutt Dubey, Aged About 41 Years, Working as Cluster Academic Coordinator, Odiyakala, Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, District and Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Kabirdham, P.S. Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
3. District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Kabirdham, P.S. Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
4. District Education Officer, Kabirdham, P.S. Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate For State :
Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 04.12.2018 1.
The challenge in both these writ petitions are to the orders AnnexureP/1 dated 04.11.2015 whereby the order of deputation of the petitioners for the post of Cluster Co-ordinator has been cancelled. 2.
Perusal of the records would see that in both these writ petitions, this Court had on 04.12.2015 rejected the application for grant of interim relief. The writ petitions are pending before this Court for last three years. By efflux of time as a consequence of the rejection of the interim application, the petitioners must have gone back to their substantive parent department for discharging their duties and as such the matters must have rendered infructuous.
3.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions stands dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge vatti