Neelkamal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5795 of 2016 Neelkamal Sahu S/o Ramsingh Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 25, Kumhar Para, Shree Ram Colony, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Pin 493445 (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Deputy Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Respondent/State Shri SP Kale, Deputy Advocate General.

For Respondent No.3 Shri Sudip Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 09/01/2017.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been has filed seeking for a relief of direction to the respondents for issuance of appointment order on the post of Lecturer (Electrical Engineering).

2. So far as first relief is concerned, the State in its reply has stated that the order of appointment of the petitioner could not be issued on account of pendency of large number of writ petitions before this court filed by the contractual Lecturers, leading case of which was Writ Petition (S) No.1656/2016.

3. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that for the moment the

petitioner is not pressing relief No.2 and prays that since the writ petitions pending before this court on account of which the respondents/State was not granting order of appointment has already been dismissed by this court on 02.01.2017, the respondents/State may therefore be directed to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. So far as relief No.2 is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall make a suitable representation before the appropriate authority bringing to their notice the discrepancies so alleged in this petition after obtaining the order of appointment.

4. The batch of writ petitions being dismissed and the fact that the petitioner's appointment order was withheld on account of pendency of those batch of writ petitions filed by the contractual Lecturers are not disputed by the counsel for the State as well as Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission. Both of them have also accepted the fact that since those writ petitions have already been dismissed by this court on 02.01.2017, the respondents as of now would not have any problem in issuance of appointment orders so far as the petitioner is concerned.

5. In view of the submissions so made by the counsel for the petitioner as also the statement made by the counsel for the State and the Public Service Commission, this court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with a direction that the respondents shall take appropriate steps for issuance of appointment orders to the petitioner in case if he is otherwise eligible, in the light of disposal of batch of writ petitions filed by the contractual Lecturers.

6. So far as other reliefs are concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the competent authority by making suitable representation after obtaining an order of appointment.

7. The petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder