1 2025:CGHC:44101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6317 of 2023 1 - Raj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Bharat Lal Yadav Aged About 36 Years Rural Medical Assistant At Primary Health Centre Bhilaibazar, Block Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Under Secretary, Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Committee Of Senior Secretary Through Secretary Gad Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, P.S. And P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director Health Services Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 5 - The Block Medical And Health Officer Block Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Purshottam Narayan Tiwari Rural Medical Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Kurda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "I. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing/set aside the orders dated 19.05.23 (Annexure P-6) arising out of order dated 30.09.22 (Annexure P-2), 25.07.233 (Annexure P-7) and 23.08.23 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent no.2, 1 & 4 in respect of petitioner. ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be 3 allowed." 2. This petition has been preferred assailing the orders dated 19.5.2023 and 23.8.2023 It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the present proceedings, no interim relief or order of stay has been granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, in the absence of any protective order and in view of the subsequent developments, the present petition has lost its efficacy and has rendered itself infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State does not dispute the same and has no objection to the petition being dismissed as infructuous. 4. In view of the above, and since nothing further survives for adjudication, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. 5. However, liberty is granted to the respondent State authorities to pass appropriate orders in respect of transfer of the petitioner, in case exigency arises, without being influenced by this order. 6. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat