Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39693 (CHH)

KALYANAND BEK v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/8314/2023 · 2025-01-16

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:2713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7352 of 2023 Kalyanand Bek S/o Late Shri Sukul Bek Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School, Taragaon A, Block- Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 8314 of 2023 Kalyanand Bek S/o Late Shri Sukul Bek, Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School, Taragaon A Block Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.20 10:49:55 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the writ petitions have become infructuous as grievance raised by the petitioners have already been redressed. 2. Learned State counsel does not oppose the said submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, both the writ petitions are dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh