,.i \ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BiLASPUR W.A.No.448/2011 DBLHONSBLE_SH_RS_SyNiLKUMAR_SINHA. J & HON'BLE SHRI RADHE SHYAIVI SHA_RMA^L APPELLANT Petltioner Raj Kumar Patei; s/o Shri Pitamber Patel, aged about 45 years, R/o Parasadeepa, Viiiage Pandripani, Tahsi! &. District Raigarh (CG) Versus RESPaNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh (earlier Madhya Pradesh), through Secretary. Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S. Bh.awan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Deputy Director, Schoof Education Department, Raigarh (CG) Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Chasrman Seiection Comm'stlee, Post Office & District Raigarh (CG) Babu Lai Sahu (dead) through Legal Representative: Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu, w/'o Late Shri Babu Lal Sahu, R/o Pandripani, Post Koda Tarai, Tahsl! & District Raigarh WRST APPEALU_NDERSECTJON 2 (1) OFJTHECHHAmSGARH HSGH COURT fAPPEAL TO DSVISION BENCHt ACT. 2006 Appearance: Shri V.R. Tiwari, Advocate for the appeilant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate forthe State/respondents 1, 2 and 3 on advance copy. ^N ..^y' WA 448/2011 ORAL^RDER (10:10.2011) Suni! Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on i.A.No.1/2011, an appiication for condonation of delay infiiingtheappeal. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfied that the appeliant has shown suffscient cause for not filing the appeat in time and the delay in flling the appeai deserves to be condoned. Accordingiy, IA.No.1/2011 is allowed and the deiay in fiSing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 1st March, 2011, passed in W.P.(S) No. 883/2005. By the impugned order, the VVrit Petition fited by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that after the death of respondent No.4, the question remaining for consideration has become academic, as aiso iong time has eiapsed after the aileged appointment of respondent No.4, who ultimateiy died during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The appeilant hadL challenged the appointment of respondent No.4, made on 11.3.1993. Respondent No.4 has died during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the month of May 2010. There was no interim order in favour of the appeiiant/petitioner. The Writ Court heid that after such a long period and further after the death of respondent No.4, nothing substantiai survives for adjudication and the matter pending remained academic onty. The Writ Petition, therefore, was dismissed by the Writ Court. On due consideration of the submissions rnade by tearned counsei for the appetlant, we do not find any infirmity or illegatity in tlie impugned order passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Appeal, therefore, Is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiv. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge