High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4742/2021disposed off

Smt. Madhu Shivare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-09-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4742 of 2021 Smt. Madhu Shivare W/o Shri Anil Shivare Aged About 36 Years Cook At Government Post Metrik Scheduled Cast Girls Hostel Mungeli, Tahsil And Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Assistant Commissioner Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/09/2021

1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that he does not want to press any other relief and confine his prayer to the extent that the respondents may be directed to scrutinize the case of petitioner in accordance with the instructions issued vide memo dated 07.03.2012.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the case of petitioner will be scrutinized in accordance with the prevailing circular dated 07.03.2012 and if the petitioner is found fit and fulfills the

-2criteria laid down in circular dated 07.03.2012, appropriate order thereafter, for her continuance of services, will be passed in accordance with law.

3. In view of the above submission made by learned State counsel, according to the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, nothing survives in this petition.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities may decide the same on its own merits.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit