1 2025:CGHC:46338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4000 of 2022 * - Nivedita Robert D/o Late V.K. Robert, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Service, Working As Typist-Cum-Clerk At Dhamtari Christian Hospital, District Dhamtari R/o Risepara West, Dagbangla Ward, Near Model School, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The Mennonite Medical Board A Society Registered Under The C.G. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 Through Its President, Dhamtari Christian Hospital, Raipur Road, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, The Mennonite Medical Board, Dhamtari Christian Hospital, Raipur Road, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. Sandeep Patonda, Secretary, Dhamtari Christian Hospital, Raipur Road, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Smiti Kiran Victor, W/o Vinish Mayank Victor, Principal, School, College Of Nursing, Dhamtari Christian Hospital, Raipur Road, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 18/03/2020 bearing No. 588/MMB passed by respondent No. 2 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service along with all the consequential benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 24/01/2020 bearing No. 566/MMB passed by respondent No. 2. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.15 19:21:30 +0530 2 10.3 Any other relief(s) / order(s) / direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition. 2. Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition against the orders issued by the respondent No. 2 which is registered society under Societies Registration Act. He would contend that as the respondent No. 2 is not a State within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, no writ can be issued against it. 3. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing, order of termination of services was passed by the respondents, therefore, writ would lie. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the fact that the respondent No. 2 is private institution and it is registered society too, therefore, no writ can be issued against it and thus, the petition is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti