State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hari Prasad Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 2535 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 176 of 2022

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Higher
     Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District
     Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2.   Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
     District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3.   Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
     Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4.   The Principal, Government College Bhaisma, Bhaisma, District Korba
     (Chhattisgarh)

                                                                 ---- Petitioners

                                    Versus

Hari Prasad Yadav S/o Late Shri Sukhi Ram Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village Bhaisma Tahsil Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh

                                                               ---- Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondents : None

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

20.04.2022

Registry has pointed out certain defaults in the writ appeal as filed.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.11.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6229 of 2021, whereby, the learned

Single Judge, while setting aside the order dated 10.08.2021, by which

prayer for compassionate appointment as made by the writ petitioner was

rejected, the appellants were directed to consider the case of the writ

petitioner afresh bearing in mind the observations made in the order.

3. Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for

the appellants submits that as the claim of the writ petitioner has been

considered in the meantime, the appeal has been rendered infructuous and

therefore, same may be dismissed accordingly.

4. In view of the above submission of Mr. Tiwari, the writ appeal is

dismissed as infructuous.

                     Sd/-                                     Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                 (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                Chief Justice                                Judge



Hem