High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/199/2017disposed off

Salik Ram Dhimar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 199 of 2017 • Salik Ram Dhimar S/o Ishwar Prasad Dhimar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Aapapura Ward No. 31, Behind Purohit Lodge, Durg, Tahsil & District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S.-Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, P.S.C. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.

For Respondent/State Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 16/01/2017.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been has filed seeking for a relief of direction to the respondents for issuance of appointment order on the post of Lecturer (Mechanical) for which the Petitioner applied in the Other Backward Category and was found eligible.

2. So far as first relief sought is concerned, learned State Counsel submits

that the order of appointment of the petitioners could not be issued on account of pendency of large number of writ petitions before this court filed by the contractual Lecturers, leading case of which was Writ Petition (S) No.1656/2016.

3. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner prays that since the writ petitions pending before this court on account of which the respondents/State was not granting order of appointment has already been dismissed by this court on 02.01.2017. The respondents/State may therefore be directed to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner.

4. The batch of writ petitions were dismissed and the fact that the petitioner's appointment order was withheld on account of pendency of those batch of writ petitions filed by the contractual Lecturers are not disputed by the counsel for the State and has accepted the fact that since those writ petitions have already been dismissed by this court on 02.01.2017, the respondents as of now would not have any problem in issuance of appointment orders so far as the petitioner is concerned.

5. In view of the submissions so made by the counsel for the petitioner as also the statement made by the counsel for the State, this court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with a direction that the respondents shall take appropriate steps for issuance of appointment order to the petitioner in case if he is otherwise eligible, in the light of disposal of batch of writ petitions filed by the contractual Lecturers.

6. In case if there is any other grievance the Petitioner will be at liberty at to make appropriate representation to the department after he gets an appointment for redessal of the same.

7. The petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge kishore