Dr.Anurag Pandey v. Union Or India And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4155 of 2008 Dr. Anurag Pandey son of Shri R.K.Pandey, aged about 33 years, Resident of House No. 49 Anand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh presently working as Lecturer, School of Biotechnology, Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiti Vishwavidyalaya (RGPV), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.Union of India, Through the Joint Secretary, Bureau of Technical Education, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.All India Council for Technical Education, Through the Chairman, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, Indraprasth Estate, New Delhi. 3.Director, National Institute of Technology (NIT), GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4.Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5.Dr. Pratima Gupta, wife of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, through the Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6.Dr. Lata Seho Bachan Upadhyay, wife of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, resident of not known to the petitioner, through the Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

7.Dr. Nilotpal Pradhan wife of not known to the Petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, resident of not known to the petitioner, through the Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8.Dr. Dhananjay Saha wife of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, resident of not known to the petitioner, through the Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9.Shri Bikesh Kumar Singh, wife of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, resident of not known to the petitioner, through the Registrar, National Institute of Technology (NIT), GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent/UoI : Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Assistant Solicitor General.

For Respondent/State : Shri Prafull N Bharat, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents No. 2,3,&4 : Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6,7&9 : Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board /04/2016 1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2.

The grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to non-consideration for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Biotechnology and Bio-Medical Engineering the results for which were published on 20.7.2008. The ground urged is that the eligibility criteria fixed in the advertisement was not corresponding to that prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter called 'the AICTE').

3.

If the advertisement was in violation of the AICTE regulations, the writ petition ought to have been filed before the last date for submission of applications and not after the results were published on 20.7.2008. 4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner additionally submits that he has no further instructions at this stage.

5.

The Court is of the opinion that the writ application in any event has become infructuous by passage of time as obviously, the vacancies must have been filled up by now and none of those selected have been made a party respondent.

6.

The writ petition is disposed as infructuous. Sd/- (Navin Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit