Laxmi Naidu & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2/Director, Directorate of Women and Child Development, inviting applications for various posts under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (Mission Vatsalya) for contractual appointment, as well as quashment of the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P/1).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been rendering their services under the respondent department for several years, but instead of considering their absorption/regularization, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2025 inviting fresh applications for various posts under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (Mission Vatsalya) on contractual basis. He further submits that pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.03.2026, the services of the petitioners have been terminated and they have been directed to hand over charge to the department. It is, therefore, submitted that the action of the respondents in replacing the petitioners, who have rendered services for several years, by fresh appointees is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, submits that though initially the contractual appointment to the petitioners was given by the respondent No.5 which is private society but subsequently the said services was taken over by the State Government. He further submits that the contractual engagement of the petitioners was discontinued pursuant to the decision of the State Government to fill up the said posts through a fresh recruitment process by inviting applications from eligible candidates. He submits that the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2025 has already been completed and the posts in question have since been filled and as such nothing remains in this petition for adjudication with regard to the legality and validity of the impugned advertisement.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

As per the submissions made by learned State counsel and the material placed on record, it appears that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.12.2025 has already been completed and the posts in question have been filled and as such nothing remains in this petition for adjudication in respect of the legality and validity of the impugned advertisement. Even the contractual assignment was initially given to the petitioners by the respondent No.5, which is a private society, however the said services were subsequently taken over by the State Government, but the contractual assignment of the petitioners was discontinued consequent upon the decision of the respondent authorities to fill up the said posts through a fresh recruitment process by inviting applications from eligible candidates.

In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, particularly when the recruitment process has already been completed and the posts have been filled, no effective relief can now be granted to the petitioners in the present proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition, at this stage, is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself as not maintainable.