1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 128 of 2026 1 - Shivani Thudgar W/o Anshul Thudgar Aged About 42 Years Working As Computer And Posted At Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Medical, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Divisional Joint Director Department Of Health Service, Old Nursing Hostel D.K.S. Campus Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Nitin Pandey Working As Accountant And Posted At Civil Hospital Mana, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. This MCC has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 3141/2023, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on the basis of a submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to an inadvertent misunderstanding, an erroneous statement was previously made before this Court to the effect that the present petition had become infructuous, whereas in reality, the petition remains live and requires adjudication on merits, particularly in view of the fact that the juniors of the petitioner have been promoted in disregard of his seniority and legitimate claim. It is further submitted that as a consequence of the said incorrect submission, the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of his lawful right to be considered for promotion, thereby causing serious and continuing prejudice to his service career and prospects. The petitioner has been adversely affected, as his juniors have already been promoted, while his rightful claim has been overlooked. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 27.11.2025 be recalled and the writ petition be restored to its original number. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the MCC. It is submitted that the order dated 27.11.2025 was passed on the 3 basis of a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner in open Court and such a statement cannot be lightly brushed aside. 4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record of the writ petition as well as the MCC. 5. Upon consideration, It is well settled that a concession or statement made by a counsel without specific authorization from the party cannot bind the litigant, particularly when such concession results in forfeiture of substantive rights. This Court is of the considered view that the disposal of the writ petition on the basis of an alleged concession, which is now specifically asserted to be unauthorized, has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. In the interest of justice, the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in WP(S) No. 3141/2023 is hereby recalled and the said writ petition is restored to its original number. The Office is directed to list WP(S) No. 3141/2023 in the week commencing 16th of February, 2026 for hearing on merits. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat