Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Smt. Nidhi Das on 8 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Review Petition No. 93 of 2019
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health and
Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bahvan, Naya Raipur
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State
of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Director, Medical Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, Old
Nurses Hostel, DKS Building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants
Versus
1. Smt. Nidhi Das W/o Shri Vineet Das, aged about 37 years, R/o
Nurani Chowk, Raja Talab, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines,
Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road,
Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate
General.
For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate
alongwith Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08.08.2022
Heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
applicants. Also heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned senior counsel, assisted
by Ms. Smita Jha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and
Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent
No.2.
2. This review application is filed seeking review of order dated
11.12.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No. 265 of 2017.
3. The order dated 11.12.2018 recites that the same was linked with
Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017 and other connected cases, which were filed
against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.01.2017 by which
all the writ petitions were dismissed refusing to accede to the prayer of
regularization or quashing the advertisement issued for appointment on
regular basis.
4. It was observed that most of those cases related to the post of
Assistant Professors or Lecturers in the State Engineering Colleges and
Polytechnic Colleges. It is also noted in the order dated 11.12.2018 that
subsequently, Writ Appeal No. 265 of 2017 was separated from Writ
Appeal No. 14 of 2017 and batch, as the writ appellant was engaged on
contract on the post of a Demonstrator and working at Government
Physiotherapy College, Raipur.
5. The order dated 11.12.2018, however, came to be passed relying
on the judgment dated 07.12.2018 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 14 of
2017 and batch (Gopi Sao & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others).
6. It is pointed out by Ms. Mirza that while against the judgment dated
07.12.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017 and batch, the State
had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being SLP
(C) No. 007864 of 2019, against the judgment dated 11.12.2018 passed
in Writ Appeal No. 265 of 2019, review application came to be filed on
28.03.2019. By producing a copy from the website, Ms. Mirza submits
that the next tentative date is fixed on 23.08.2022.
7. Mr. Ahluwalia fairly submits that he was not aware of this
development. He, however, submits that no return could be filed in the
writ petition as well as in the writ appeal, and therefore, provision of
Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules,
2013 (for short, 'the Rules of 2013'), which has relevance, could not be
placed before the Court for consideration.
8. The writ petition was filed on 22.06.2016 and the case was
reserved for judgment on 22.11.2016 and similarly, while the writ appeal
was filed on 11.07.2017, the same came to be disposed of by an order
dated 11.12.2018.
9. The State had adequate opportunity to bring to notice of the Court
the Rules of 2013. We are of the considered opinion that no case for
review is made out. That apart, it is noticed that the judgment relying
upon which the present writ appeal was disposed of is pending
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. Accordingly, review application is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
