Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1613 (CHH)

UTTAM SINGH SIDAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/2709/2019 · 2026-02-04

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:6545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2709 of 2019 1 - Uttam Singh Sidar S/o Shri Rajan Singh Sidar Aged About 37 Years Brp (I.I.D.), Brc Office Gharghoda, Disrtict- Raigarh And R/o Village Dongadarha, Post Dumaria, Tehsil Pharsabahar, District- Jashpur Chhattsgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Matralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector-Cum-District Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer-Cum-District Project Coordinator Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Udit Khatri on behalf of Shri Animesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amit Buxy, Deputy GA. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 05/02/2026 KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.02.06 12:07:00 +0530 2 1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the writ petition, it appears that the impugned order dated 22.2.2019 (Annexure-P/1) has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order dated 22.2.2019 (Annexure-P/1) deserves to be and is hereby set aside. However, it is observed that the petitioner will not be entitled for reinstatement, as the appointment of the petitioner was for limited period and the petitioner was contractual employee and his tenure has expired. It is also observed that in future, if the petitioner applies for the subject post, his case may be considered in accordance with law. 2. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve