1 2025:CGHC:9140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1963 of 2019 1 - Vikas Markam S/o Shri Kapil Ram Markam Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Vice Chairperson, Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Aayog, Raipur, R/o Radhaswami Nagar, A-15, Near Gol Chowk, Ring Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjaati Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Aayog, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.02.2025 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in two rounds. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 To call for the entire records from the authorities. 10.2 To set aside action(s) on part of the Respondents by which they are seeking to scuttle the appointment of the Petitioner and remove him from the post of Vice Chairperson of the Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Aayog before the expiry of his term, in contravention to Section 4 of the Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Act 1995 and its provisions by setting aside ANNEXURE P/9 and ANNEXURE P/10 and ANNEXURE P/13. 10.3 Any other relief, this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances, may also be granted to the Petitioner, in the interests of justice.” 3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a non-official member of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Aayog for a period of three years. Vide order dated 16.5.2019, he was removed after the expiry of his three-year tenure. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the tenure of the petitioner has already expired, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. 5. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed for a period of three years from 17.5.2016 to 16.5.2019, and the tenure has already expired, in opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi