Dr. Manjit Kaur Bal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 510 of 2015 Dr. Manjit Kaur Bal, aged about 39 years, D/o Shri D.S.Bal, R/o D-6, Thakur Pyarelal Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Sansthan, Nimora, P.O. Mana Basti, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Thakur Pyarelal Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Sansthan, Nimora, P.O. Mana Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Bhavani Shankar Tiwari, Deputy Director (Rtd) 404-A, Harsh Tower, Devpuri Mana Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Lalit Kishore Sharma, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Baleshwar Sharma, R/o Women Polytechnic Campus, Bairon Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Appellant :

Shri Animesh Verma, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgment on Board 28/10/2015 1.

The present appeal arises from order dated 19.8.2015 dismissing Writ Petition (S) No. 2982 of 2015 holding that it was not maintainable against a show cause notice.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the order unnecessarily casts stigma on the Appellant and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 3.

Learned Counsel for the State points out that Appellant was appointed on contract basis. The tenure itself has come to an end in August, 2015. The show cause notice dated 10.8.2015 has itself become infructuous in view of the subsequent development.

4.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 5.

In view of the fact that the tenure of the contract appointment itself has come to an end by efflux of time, even the show cause notice issued to the Appellant has lost its relevance by subsequent event. To that extent, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Learned Single Judge. Needless to state that if the Appellant applies in response to fresh advertisement for the same or similar post, her application is required to be considered in accordance with law on its own merits.

6.

The writ appeal is disposed with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Subbu