1 2025:CGHC:20071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4302 of 2019 1 - Dr. J. R. Soni S/o Late B. R. Soni Aged About 66 Years Secretary, Gurughasidas Sahitya And Sanskriti Academy, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. R/o D-95, Gurughasidas Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Addl. Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue an SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- appropriate writ/direction/order commanding the respondents to quash the impugned order dated 20-12- 2018 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 Any other relief(s), which may deems fit, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case may be given to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the petitioner was appointed as President of Gurughasidas Research Centre of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur on 7.9.2017 by respondent No.1. She would contend that vide Annexure-P/1 dated 20.12.2018, respondent No.1 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing. She would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.1 and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. 3. No objection from the other side. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.1 within a period of 30 days. In turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation expeditiously, in an objective manner, by assigning sufficient reasons. 3 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi