← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/4977/2005dismissed

Rishi Kumar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2017-11-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.4977 of 2005 Rishi Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Sant Kumar Singh, aged about 33 years, Occupation Service, presently posted as Lab Technician in Community Health Centre Bodala, Tahsil and District Kabirdham (CG). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2.

Director, Health Services, Raipur (CG).

3.

The Chairman, RCH Society, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG).

4.

The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kabirdham (CG). 5.

The Collector, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG). 6.

Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bodala, District Kabirdham (CG).

7.

Shri Bihari Das Vaishnav, S/o Shri Ram Das, R/o Near Karpatri Park, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG).

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.7 :

Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/11/2017 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 06.12.2004 passed by respondent No.5-Collector, Kawardha is unsustainable and bad in law. (2) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 would support the impugned order and oppose the submission made by

learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and also gone through the impugned order with utmost circumspection. (4) The learned Collector has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner did not have requisite educational qualification for the post of Lab Technician, therefore his contract period be not extended further. The finding recorded by the learned Collector is based on material available on record, in which I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

(5) Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-