Ramashray Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2896 of 2020 • Ramashray Singh S/o Late Shri Mahesh Singh Aged About 63 Years 24/90 Electric Pole, Near Shiv Mandir, New Santoshipara, Ward No. 25, Camp- 2, Bhilai Dist- Durg, (C.G.)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S.- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, (C.G.)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Public Instruction Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, DistrictRaipur, (C.G.)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The District Education Officer Durg Near Multipurpose School Durg Distt. Durg, (C.G.)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. The Principal Indira Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Ramnagar Supela Bhilai Distt.- Durg, (C.G.)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

5. The President Adarsh Shikshan Samiti, Indiragandhi Higher Secondary School, Ramnagar Supela Bhilai Durg, (C.G.)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

6. The Joint Director Education Division Durg, In-Front Of Jila Panchayat, G.E. Road, Durg, (C.G.)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vipin Tiwari, , Advocate For State :

Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 22.07.2020

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with notice of superannuation on 30-6-2019 and according to the Government circular, the petitioner could not have been retired till the end of academic session. Consequently, after correspondence, a direction was given on 26-11-2019 vide Annexure P/10 wherein certain typographical errors exists and thereafter it was corrected by order dated 41-2020 vide Annexure P/11 whereby it was directed that the petitioner may be reappointed till 30-4-2020.

3. Considered the submission. As on date i.e., July 2020 the order dated 4-1-2020 (Annexure P/11) cannot be revived as by efflux of time it has lived its life. If certain officials have not complied the direction of the higher officers, then the petitioner has remedy against the particular officer before the competent court of law. In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no adjudication, at this stage, is required by this court. Consequently, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedy available to him under general law, in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju