Dhiraj Bai Ghritlahare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5904 of 2018 Dhiraj Bai Ghritlahare W/o Sanjay Ghritlahare, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Kukda, Block Palari, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgrh.

2. Collector, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3. District Programme Officer, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District- BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

5. Programme Officer, Integrate Women And Child Development Department, Palari, Distict Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Palari (Member Of Recruitment Committee), District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

7. Block Education Officer (Member Of Recruitment Committee), Janpad Panchayat Palari, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

8. Block Medical Officer, Health And Medical Centre Palari (Member Of Recruitment Committee), Palari, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For petitioner :

Ms. Hamida Sidduqui, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/09/2018 1.

Ignoring the default pointed out by the Registry, with the consent of the parties, the matter decided finally.

2.

The basic challenge in the present writ petition was in respect of non consideration of the petitioner for the post of Angan Badi Worker at Angan Badi Centre Kosmanda, Block Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. 3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that pending the petition before this Court, the respondents have now issued a formal order of appointment granting appointment to some other person who originally was found to have scored less marks than the petitioner.

4.

Given the said facts and change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with the matter at this juncture as the subsequent development is an appealable order and the appeal would lie before the Collector.

5.

Thus, reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Collector, the present writ petition stands disposed of. In case of an appeal being preferred by the petitioner, it is expected that the appellate authority would consider the objections and contentions which the petitioner raises in the appeal supported with all documents and after due verification of the same, would he decide the appeal.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE