Seema Joshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 4561 of 2007 Seema Joshi W/o Shri Sunil Joshi, presently residing at Quarter No. 15B, Street No. 17, Sector 2, Bhilai, District Durg, CG ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG

2. Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, C-168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, CG

3. Director, State Education Research and Training Institute, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, CG ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 3/State:

Shri S. P. Kale, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent no.2 :

Shri H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Smt. Iturani Mukherjee, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 24.11.2016 The present petition had been filed seeking for a specific relief of a direction to the respondents not to impose a minimum eligibility condition for participating in the counseling for getting admission in B.Ed. course. 2.

This Court vide its order dated 03.08.2007 while admitting the petition had granted interim relief to the petitioner to participate in the counseling for admission in B.Ed. Course.

3.

Shri Das submits that since the petitioner was permitted by this court for participating in the counseling for admission in B.Ed. Course, the petitioner might have got admission and completed the B.Ed course and subsequently she must have got the decree in respect of the said course. As such the grievance of

the petitioner stands redressed and she does not intend to pursue the petition any further. However, he makes a request that the State may be directed not to take the disposal of the present writ petition as a reason for recalling of the decree/certificate which the petitioner might have attained in due course, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. 4.

Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well as for the State have not opposed the said request made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous.

6.

It is made clear that if the petitioner has attained the qualification by virtue of the interim protection, the same should not in any manner be questioned because of the dismissal of this writ petition. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Bhola