High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6037/2019disposed off

Padma Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-08-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6037 of 2019 Padma Manikpuri D/o Purandas Manikpuri Aged About 30 Years Occupation Guest Lecturer (English), Govt. Naveen College, Chandrapur, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director Higher Education Block C-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Principal Govt. Naveen College, Chandrapur, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Dhaniram Patel, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 19/08/2019

1. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to respondents to consider the re-engagement of the petitioner as a Guest Lecturer in English subject.

2. Perusal of the record would show that petitioner in fact was first appointed as Guest lecturer on 18.11.2017 for the academic session 2017-18. There does not appear to be any further order of extension beyond 2018. No document in the present writ petition shows that petitioner was discharging duties for the academic session 2018-19. Accordingly, no indefeasible right as such has been granted in favour of the petitioner for any appropriate direction.

3. This court therefore, is reluctant to pass any order in favour of the petitioner. However, petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondent No. 3 by making appropriate representation for reengagement if the college authorities so want.

4. This Court has not expressed any opinion so far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit