Smt. Namrata Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8109 of 2018 Smt. Namrata Thakur D/o Shri Bhanendra Singh Thakur, Aged About 29 Years, R/o In Front Of Bazar Ward No. 12, Churiyara Para Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The District Education Officer, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Executive Officer, District Panchayat, North Bastar Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisarh.

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Dhamtari, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

5. Smt. Gitika Banchhor W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Banchhor, R/o MIG-II, House No.132, Street New Housing Board Colony, City and Village Kumhari, Post Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.).

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate.

For resp.No. 1 & 2 :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09/01/2019 1.

In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner had participated in the selection process for the post of Lecturer in Geology subject vide advertisement dated 24/07/2017. The petitioner found place in the waiting list for the said post.

2.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.5 Smt. - Gitika Banchhor who was selected on the said post has subsequently not

been given joining on the said post and as such the post is lying vacant and the said post has to be filled from among the next available candidate in the waiting list. According to the counsel for the petitioner, she is entitled for the said post.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the petitioner has already made representation to the respondent No.3, but no effective orders till date have been passed.

4.

In the given facts, this Court is of the opinion that, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the Writ Petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition is dispose of with the direction to the respondent No.3 to take appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5.

It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondent No.3 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. 6.

Needless to mention that, the petitioner would also be at liberty to file an additional fresh representation to the respondent No.3 ventilating his grievance.

7.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE