Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18426 (CHH)

ASHMANA BAGHEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/6288/2021 · 2026-03-19

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:13563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6288 of 2021 * - Ashmana Baghel D/o Motiram Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 121, Chakrway Maro (N. P.) Nandghat Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Directorate Of Public Education Department, Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Education Department, Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary, Chhattisgarh School Education Department Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Its Chairmen, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-1, Atal Nagar, Naya Riaur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Amit Upadhyay Roll No. 11064087, Presently Posted As Lecturer Higher Secondary School Dhawalpur, Block Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 6 - Himeshwari Sahu Roll No. 25194166, Presently Posted As Lecturer Higher Secondary School Kanya Nagri Block Nagri District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ananijay Roll No. 13234217 Presently Posted As Lecturer Higher Secondary School Rituvardh, Block - Churra, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : None appeared even in two rounds For Respondent No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 For Respondent No. 6 : : : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer Mrs Akansha Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.23 12:14:56 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the present selection, and the comparative results, for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 02/01/2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 2. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to 3 to cancel the appointments of the private respondents given on the post of lecturer subject Physics (Annexure P-2) in the light of the circular dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure P-9) issued by respondent no. 1 to 3. 10.4 Any other relief / relief’s which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner even in two rounds, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti