Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6971 (CHH)

PREETI SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCC/366/2026 · 2026-04-15

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:17486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 366 of 2026 Preeti Sahu W/o Shri Debadatta Mahlik Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 11/2- 78, Sector-2 Shivanand Nagar P.O. And P.S. Khamtarai, Khamtaraj, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin 492008, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, 492002, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Directorate Of Medical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rehabilitation Council Of India, Through Its Director, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110075, District New Delhi, Delhi 5 - Lukeshwari Verma D/o Shri Shankerlal Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Hari-Om Bhawan, Vijay Nagar, Bhandpuri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartik Kathuria, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.17 10:55:01 +0530 2 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 16/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for restoration of the W.P.(S) No. 2786/2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.02.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that due to unavoidable reason, he could not appeared in the case, at the time when the matter was called for hearing and the writ petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.02.2026. 4. The matter pertains to selection process on the post of Assistant Professor (Audiology & Speech Language Pathology) and which requires adjudication on merits, therefore, he has filed the application for restoration of the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents opposes. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the W.P. (S) No. 2786/2015 is restored to its original number. 7. The MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit