Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30285 (CHH)

NISHTHA THAKUR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5474/2023 · 2025-09-10

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:46569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5474 of 2023 1 - Nishtha Thakur D/o Lalit Singh Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o House No.132 Durga Chowk Nayapara, Ward No.13, Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Level Tribal Welfare, Awasiya Evam Ashram Shaishnik Sansthan Samiti, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare And Development Department District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Collector/president District Level Tribal Welfare Awasiya Evam Aashram Shaishanik Sansthan Samiti, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Principal Government Eklavya Model Residential School Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Kailash Chaurasiya S/o Bholanath Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.11, Sankra, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the advertisement dated 27.04.2023 and the merit list dated 23.06.2023 as well as appointment of respondent no. 6, so far as it relates to the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the efflux of time, the petition has been rendered infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State agreed with the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and has no objection. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat