Dr. Smt. Rachana Rastogi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 477 of 2016 Dr. (Smt.) Rachana Rastogi W/o Dr. Nitin Rastogi, aged about 48 years, Occupation- Service, Presently Working As Lecturer (Now Designated as Assistant Professor), at Government Engineering College, Raipur, R/o Professor Colony, Krishak Nagar, Jora, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Manpower, Science And Technology, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Manpower, Science And Technology, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Principal, Government Engineering College, Purani Dhamtari Road, Village Sejbahar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Malay Shrivastavs, Advocate For State :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate For respondent no.3 :

Shri Ajay Chandra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 23/01/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the advertisement dated 17.12.2015 and the examination which was to be held on 22.03.2015 by respondent no.3.

2. Counsel for the parties fairly submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been recently decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.14/17 decided on 07.12.2018 whereby the fresh advertisement and the recruitment process initiated by the respondents have been held to be bad. It has been further directed by the Division Bench to the respondents to consider the case of the appellants therein for regularization.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the fact of the case which has been decided by the Division Bench is identical to the facts of the present case, which is not disputed by the State counsel.

4. In view of the same, the present writ petition also stands allowed in similar terms as has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 14/2017 decided on 07.12.2018. As a consequence, the impugned advertisement and the subsequent recruitment process under challenge in the present writ petition stand set aside/quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner also for regularization on the post against which she is presently discharging her duties. Let steps for regularization of the petitioner be initiated and completed within a period of 3 months as has been stipulated by the Division Bench in the aforementioned Writ Appeal.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Khatai