High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2118/2019disposed off

Smt. Dineshwari Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-03-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2118 of 2019 Smt. Dineshwari Sahu W/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Sahu Aged About 34 Years (Worked As A Lecturer At Government Polytechnic Korba) R/o Sector II, Ganga Nagar, Phase II, Near Shiv Mandir, Behind Mundra Hospital, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Manpower, Science And Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director Directorate Of Technical Education Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Government Polytechnic Korba Through Its Principal Government Polytechnic Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For State :

Ms. Shriya Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26/03/2019

1. The limited prayer that the petitioner has made is that the petitioner has made a detailed representation to the respondent No.2 for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization.

2. According to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of the recent order of Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A. No. 14/2017 (Gopi Sao & others v/s. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other analogous writ petitions decided on 07.12.2018.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner by now has already put in about 5 years of service before he stood

-2discontinued in the year 2016. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents authorities may consider the case of the petitioner only in the light of the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Gopi Sao" (supra).

4. Given the said limited request that the petitioner has made, ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the rules, regulations and the laws governing the field.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned. The respondent No.2 would be free to take a decision in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved