Swapnil Choubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5657 of 2016

1. Swapnil Choubey S/o Santosh Choubey Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Mathpara, Near Budha Mahadev Mandir, District- Kawardha, Chhattisgarh

2. Deepak Kumar Shrivastava S/o Vijay Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 33 Years R/o Qtr. No. 220, Sector 1/b, Balco Nagar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

3. Om Kant Gupt S/o Gokul Prasad Gupt Aged About 24 Years R/o M/117, Bartunga Chirimiri, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technicla Education And Employment Department, Office Situated At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service, Commission Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Office At Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Square, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Romesh Kumar Rathore, Lecturer ( Electronics And Telecommunication), Posted At Government Polytechnic, Ambikapur, District- Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

5. Chandresh Kumar Deshmukh Lecturer ( Electronics And Telecommunication), Posted At Government Polytechnic, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

6. Srijan Kumar, Lecturer ( Electronics And Telecommunication), Posted At Government Polytechnic, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

7. Basant Kumar Patel, Lecturer ( Electronics And Telecommunication), Posted At Government Polytechnic, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioners Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.

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

For Respondent No.3 Shri Sudip Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No.5 Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06/01/2017.

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 (Electronics & Telecommunication) in unreserved category. It was also prayed by the petitioners that after grant of appointment order, they be placed over and above the respondents No.4 to 7 as they are less meritorious than the petitioners in the order of merit.

2. So far as first relief is concerned, the State in its reply has stated that the order of appointment of the petitioners 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 petitioners submits that for the moment the petitioners are 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 petitioners. So far as relief No.2 is concerned, counsel for the petitioners submits that they shall make a suitable representation before the appropriate authority bringing to their notice the discrepancies so alleged in this petition after obtaining an order of appointment.

4. The batch of writ petitions were dismissed and the fact that the petitioners 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 petitioners are concerned.

5. In view of the submissions so made by the counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners in case if they are 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 petitioners 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