Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46730 (CHH)

DR. RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WA/99/2025 · 2025-02-10

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:7228-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 99 of 2025 Dr. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri R.S. Thakur, Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Old Cseb OfÏce, Dharampura No. 1, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Bastar Vishvavidyalaya, A University Constituted Under The Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973, Through The Registrar, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 3. Registrar, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharmapura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 4. Dr. Anand Murli Mishra, S/o Lt. Shri R.J. Mishra, Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Bastar Vishwavidyalay, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 5. Interview Committee, Through The Chairman (Vice-Chancellor), Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.10 20:30:43 +0530 2 For Appellant : None. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.02.2025 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal when the case is called out. 2. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, is present. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 306 of 2012 (Dr. Rajendra Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the appellant is not present nor any representation made on behalf of the appellant to press this petition on repeated calls and it appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan