Ramakant Mishra v. Mr. Niraj Kumar Bansod

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 118 of 2016 • Ramakant Mishra S/o Priyashankar Mishra, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sargaon, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, Civil And Revenue District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Mr. Niraj Kumar Bansod Aged About 38 Years , Posted (Before Dec. 2014) As Chief Executive OfÏcer, In The OfÏce Of The Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Dr. Mr. Sharveshawar Narendra Bhure Aged About 53 Years , Posted (From Dec. 2014) As Chief Executive OfÏcer, In The OfÏce Of The Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Dr. Smt. Archana Mishra 45 Years , Posted As Programme OfÏcer And Dealing The Petitioner Case And General Body Meeting Dt. 15.05.2015 Of The OfÏce Chief Executive OfÏcer, R/o The OfÏce Of The Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Mr. Deepak Sahu Aged About 44 Years , President District Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............ (Contemnors) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Vijay Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 14/6/2016

1. Heard.

2. The present contempt petition arises out of the order dated 18.07.2014 passed in WPS No.3318 of 2014. The petitioner was

candidate in the recruitment of Shikshak (Panchayat) (Librarian) initiated by the Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur. By the order passed in writ petition, respondent No.2, CEO, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, was directed to complete the process of verification of certificates submitted by the writ petitioners within a period of 06 weeks from the date of passing of the said order. However, the order dated 18.07.2014 having not been complied, the present contempt petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 & 3 would submit that during pendency of the present contempt petition, the Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, has cancelled the selection process. He would also submit that before the said cancellation, the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by this Court was complied with.

4. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for respondents 1,2 & 3, nothing survives in this contempt petition for proceeding further in the matter. However, if the petitioner desires, he may prefer a separate writ petition challenging the order, whereby, the selection process has been cancelled.

5. In view of the above, the contempt petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna