Anamika Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to accommodate the petitioner in view of the priority list submitted by her.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the Respondent No.2, to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order for posting of the petitioner in view of the priority list/district.

10.4 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner;”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science) pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, she was not allotted the district as per her priority despite having submitted her preference in time. It is contended that after the order dated 24.08.2023, whereby the respondent authorities modified the posting of similarly situated candidates on consideration of their representations, several posts in different districts are still lying vacant. The petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 10.09.2023 before respondent No. 2 seeking modification of her posting in accordance with her priority district; however, the same remains pending till date. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation expeditiously in accordance with law.

Learned State counsel submits that the State is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s pending representation may be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and the prevailing policy.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and taking into account the fair stand of learned State counsel that there is no objection to the said prayer, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 2, are directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 10.09.2023 in accordance with law, keeping in view the relevant recruitment rules and the prevailing policy of the State Government, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that while deciding the representation, the competent authority shall assign brief reasons and communicate its decision to the petitioner forthwith.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the decision shall be taken independently by the competent authority on its own merits and in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.