Smt. Tripti Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2689 of 2018 • Smt. Tripti Verma W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Verma Aged About 30 Years Posted As Training Officer (Diesel Mechanic) Government Industrial Training Institute, Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Special Secretary, Department of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Technical Education, Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 4, 1st Floor Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Pulgaon, P.S. Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Shri Adhiraj Surana, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge Order on Board 20/04/2018

1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the grievance of the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner was selected in the Government (Diesel Mechanic) in ITI, Durg. She has not been granted the permission to participate in the second semester of the said training course. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and bunch of similarly other Petitioners had on an earlier occasion referred a writ petition challenging the action on the part of the Respondents vide WPS No.4805 of 2015, whereby the Petitioners were declared ineligible for the post of training course. The High Court vide its common judgment dated 09.10.2017 had allowed the

writ petition and have quashed the order declaring the Petitioner ineligible.

2. Accordingly, the Petitioner thereafter were eligible for the second semester of the course. However, till date the Respondent authorities have not issued an appropriate order in this regard.

3. Keeping in view of the order of the High Court dated 09.10.2017 and given the aforesaid facts, let the Petitioner make a representation in this regard to the Respondent No.2, who in turn shall take a decision on the representation, particularly keeping in view the decision of the High Court dated 09.10.2017 passed in the bunch of writ petitions the lead among being WPS No.4805 of 2015. On the Petitioner making a representation within 10 days from today, the Respondent No.2 in turn shall take an appropriate decision within a further period of 30 days thereafter.

4. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Brijmohan/Vaishali