-1- 2025:CGHC:34862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1280 of 2021 Kamta Prasad Gupta S/o Manuram Gupta Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Loharsingh, House No. 128, Police Station Pussour District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Medical Education Chhattisgarh , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Adhisthata Lt. Lakhiram Agrawal Smriti Chikitsha College Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jyoti Yadav D/o Shri S.S. Yadav Working As Pti (Regular) At Lt. Shri Lakhiram Agrawal Smriti Chikitsha College Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- “10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ direction/ order to quash impugned order dated 30.01.2020 and 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) so far as appointment of respondent no. 4 is concern and the petitioner may be continued in service on the said post, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- petition, may also be granted.” 2) Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of PTI (Contractual) on 24.01.2017. He would contend that vide order dated 17.01.2020, respondent No.4/Ms. Jyoti Yadav was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post of PTI (Regular) at Shri Lakhiram Agrawal Smriti Chikitsa College, Raigarh, District Raigarh. He would further submit that vide order dated 30.01.2020, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to respondent No.4. He would contend that the petitioner had rendered services for a considerable period, and instead of regularizing her services, respondent No.4 was appointed. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned orders. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that respondent No.4 had duly participated in the recruitment process and, upon selection, she was appointed to the post of PTI. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of PTI to the respondent No.4. 4) Taking into consideration, the fact that respondent No.4 was selected through a valid recruitment process and appointed accordingly, therefore, no case is made out for interference with the orders impugned. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim