High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2433/2021rejected

Savita Banjare Jogiwansh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-06-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2433 of 2021 • Savita Banjare Jogiwansh W/o Shri Saroj Kumar Jogiwansh Aged About 36 Years Posted As Guest Lecturer (Hindi) In The College Of The Govt. N.S.G. College Mungeli Chhattisgarh R/o Ward No. 11, Village Dandgaon, Post Bhatgaon, Police Station Pathariya, Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. Pin 495334, Mb. 9713871904.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director Higher Education Raipur Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Commissioner Higher Education Raipur, Chhattisgarh, In The Office Of Commissioner Higher Education Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Principal Govt. N.S.G. College Mungeli Posted In Govt. N.S.G. College Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

5. Shri Girish Das Manikpuri Aged About 25 Years Govt. N.S.G. College Mungeli Posted In Govt. N.S.G. College Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Shri Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16/06/2021 1.

Aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in not extending the engagement of the petitioner as a Guest Faculty for the academic session 2020-2021, the present writ petition has been filed. 2.

During the course of the hearing, it has been revealed that the

respondents had meanwhile issued an advertisement on 24.02.2021. The petitioner had also participated in the said recruitment process initiated from the said advertisement.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been unofficially informed that the recruitment process has been completed and order of appointments have also been issued and the respondent No.5 happens to be the person who has got appointment. 4.

Given the aforesaid fact of the petitioner having participated in the recruitment process and being unsuccessful, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not have any right subsequent to his being unsuccessful turning around and challenging the advertisement now. In any case the basic appointment of the petitioner was that of a Guest Lecturer only for one academic session i.e. 2019-2020, which came to an end after the completion of the academic session 2019-2020. Subsequent to that the petitioner was not engaged and there has been a considerable gap in between. For this reason also, the petitioner may not have a right created in his favour claiming for any benefit.

The writ petition thus sans merit and deserve to be and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Chandra