← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6656/2018dismissed

Kishore Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6656 of 2018 Kishore Kumar Sharma W/o Late Shri Shanker Prasad Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Public Instructions, Office Of Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh

4. The District Education Officer, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri S. A. Ansari, Advocate For State :

Shri D. Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06.10.2018 The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents for issuance of the order of reappointment in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 28.06.2008 issued by the District Education Officer, Raipur and also pursuant to the order dated 09.04.2009 passed in WP227 No. 2545/2005.

2.

At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the petition suffers from

inordinate delay and laches. From the pleadings of the petition itself it is reflected that the petitioner had worked as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis from 1981 to 1983 and since when his services were discontinued. From 1988 to 2018, except for making periodical representation and in between filing a writ petition in the year 1998 which was also withdrawn in the year 2009 with liberty to approach the authority, the petitioner does not seem to have strongly pursued his claim promptly. Now the present writ petition has been filed in the light of some order passed in favour of some similarly placed persons though the same had been passed more than 10 years back.

3.

Another reason that this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition is that the petitioner has by efflux of time reached the age of 59-60 years and therefore, no fruitful purpose would serve if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reappointment as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis.

4.

The writ petition therefore stands dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Bhola