Vishwajeet Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1934 OF 2011 Vishwajeet Singh S/o Late Shri Bhaktpal Singh, aged about 30 years, working as Platoon Commander, officer of the Commandant 11th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Janjgir, R/o Village Putpura, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.

The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.

The Director General Chhattisgarh Armed Force (C.A.F.), Police Head Quarter, Raipur Distric Raipur (C.G.) 4.

The Inspector General of Police, (Administration ), P.H.Q. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Administration ) P.H.Q. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6.

The Superintendent of Police, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 7.

The Commandant, 11th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

None.

For Respondent-State :

Mr. UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/12/2015 1.

The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that he may be treated as Sub Inspector from the date of his initial appointment and further the works of a Sub Inspector may be taken from him.

2.

The State in its return has submitted that the grievance of the Petitioner stood redressed from Annexure P-3 wherein it has been ordered that his appointment would be on the post of Sub Inspector right from the time of his initial appointment on the post of Platoon

-2Commander on the basis of revised merit list being published. Counsel for the State also submitted that the work for Sub Inspector was not being taken from the Petitioner because of the reason that there were certain writ petitions pending before the High Court challenging the publication of the revised merit list. He further submits that pending the present writ petition, the other writ petitions which were earlier filed challenging the revised merit list have all been dismissed and attained finality from the Supreme Court also and therefore in all probability by now the Petitioner must have been granted an order of discharging the duties of Sub Inspector.

3.

Learned Counsel for the State further submits that if at all if such an order had not been passed he would issue necessary instructions to the authorities concerned for passing appropriate orders particularly on account of the fact that the other writ petitions which were filed earlier stand dismissed.

4.

In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the State, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon and hence the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/