3 Single Bench ® IN THE HON’BLE ‘HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MM WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2009 / V_. PETITIONER Abhishek Pandey, S/o Shri RamvilasPandey, aged about 29 years, presently working as Sub Inspector (Probation) UnderSuperintendent of Police, APTS.Jagdalpur District Jagadalpurand R/o New Sarkanda, Bangalipara, Gali No. 3, House No.4, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS kw 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantraiaya,Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur \_ (Chhattisgarh) 2. Director General of Police (Administration &Training), Chhattisgarh, Police HQ, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Deputy Director, State Police Academy, Chandkhuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS WRIT ON PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARII MANDAMUS, AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: i) ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI NO. 4421 OF 2009 Abhishek Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order on gg‘Qday of November, 2009 Sdk Satish K. Agnihotri'I Judge I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4421 OF 2009 PETITIONER Abhishek Pandey Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (Passed on this 23Mday of November, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 20-4-2009 (Annexure — P/1), whereby the petitioner was removed from training on account of the fact that the petitioner remained absent for 47 days from continuous police training at State Police Academy, Chandkuri, Raipur. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that pursuant to the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sub inspector on 21-8-2008 (Annexure — P/2), the / petitioner was sent for'training as per Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non—Gazetted) Recruitment & Service Rules, 2006 for a period of one year at State Police Academy, Chandkuri, Raipur. The petitioner on account of his illness remained absent for the period from 1—9-2008 to 31-1-2009. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 18-2-2009 (Annexure ,— P/4) was issued. The 7( r H petitioner replied to the said show cause notice stating that he was not absent for 5O days, but for 44 days, as the petitioner was not medically fit. .Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from the training institute by order dated 20-4-2009 (Annexure — PI1) and by order dated 2-5-2009 he was posted with the Superintendent of I Police, APTS, Jagdalpur. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner could not complete the training of one year on account of his illness and, as such, the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to take three months remaining period oftraining. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that the one year training is a continuous training programme and the gap of three months would not be of any use for training, as it requires continuous physical as well as other training programmes. There is no programme for 3 months training. However, by order dated 5-10-2009 (Annexure — i ' R/1), the petitioner has again been sent to the training institute and, as such, this petition has become infructuous. 5. i have heard learnedc'ounsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. It is apparent that the police training should be in continuation and the gap of three months may defeat the purpose of continuous , \ one year training. Thus, the direction as sought for by the \ \ petitioner to permit him to take remaining'three months training is GoWri not proper, as there is no dispute that there was a gap of 47 days after completion of nine months training. Now; the respondent—authorities have already taken a decisionjo send the petitioner for training by orders dated 5-10—2009 (Annexure — R/1) and 8—10-2009 (Annexure — R/2). After the petitioner has joined the training institute, nothing survives for adjudication. 7. in view of foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. i it Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge i i i