m ^ B»Alym IN •sm msm ©QQSS @F •^H^&KSATURE A3' ^BALPIJR -'^. ^^RIf<t3rClTXW,3N@^'^S "©P.:1997 ": 2, 3. 5*. 8, 9. 1. ^ 2. ^' t ^^2^EEN vl.atem ipraaadl ®/oBifeaieat ^^1 Aadity, aged abovt 29 yean»> Assistaait Teaehcr» 8/@ Viliag® Pond.lafaauBloBrfr Tahsll CIuu^»a d|AtriGt Bilaspya? (Bil>)» /ncv^-iM ^ , _ \ \ \ QflB^dl I.al S/o Sbri SAyapcam Pegwae', aged about 27 years ^ ABs&Btant Teaeher^ x'esideat of Village Saragaon, Tahsil €ha»pa»district Bllaspur^ Slsri Komal Pra^ad S^o SMri Ramjl Dads@aa a®Q^d ikbottt 23 years> r/o Village Karnod» Tahsil CMampa district Bilaspur (1'IP)^ Ka.Malkl Vastirakar Bi/o Shrl Sabeblai* aged abottt 28 y®ars»r/o Hatlaaeora» Tahsil Champa district Bilaspuar (NP)» 3 Rajesh Karaar S/o stari Dilwran Jhalariyat, aged aboat 24 years^ 8/@ Village Saragaoattabsil Ghampa district Bilaspur* Prareod Siagb S/o shri Sitariaa Goiad» aged abottt 23 years* Assistant Teacta!er» Aiislstant T®ach»r» R/o VillageSathA ,dJl»tr.Lct Bilaspur (M?)» ^Tai Sisigh Gbandra S/o Jiya I»al Chandra^ aged about 28 years •Asslstant Teacher» R/o I<a)chll distrlct Bilaspwr » Gaoesh Ram s/o Naray^n pKASA& AGED AsoyT <t» 28 years^ occupation Poon^ resident of Simariya district Bilaspuro Bihari Lal son of Dal sahsic Sai, aged about 27 years, occupattoa peon, residoait of Birri district Bilaspur (MP). PETI'i'IONERS VSRSUS The State of M*P», through Secretary Sehool Bdueation department, gallabh Bhawan^ Bhopal. Coramissioner,Publie Sducation »M«P»Bho@al» TT^-: '\ ^.3. 4, ^ 5. 6, ^ ^t 02 tt Director, S^ucation, Distrtiet gilaspur. Exeeutive Nirdesak, Distrtct Granin vikas Abhikaran, Bilaspur (Bhri Rajiv Raajaa) Additional Collector Bilaspur • Block Developcaent Bdy.oation Offieer Bamnidih • Janpad Panchayat Banuaidih^ throxagh its Chief Executive Officer, Bamnidih district Bilaspur RESPONDENTS miT PETITION T3NDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF CONSTISUTION OF INDIA I HSGH COURT OF CHHATT3SGARH : BIL.ASPUR PEimONERS WRIT PETITION N0.783 OF 1997 Vishnu Prasad & Others Versus TheStateofM.P.&Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petltion under ArticJe 226/227 ofthe Constltution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ^ Present:- ' Shri Av^dh Tripathi, Adyocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar,^ Panel! Lawyer for the Stste. ORDERtORAU i (Passed on thls 10th day of March, 2010) • 1. By this petltion, the petltioners; chaiienge theilegallty ana validity of theorder dated 11-2-1997 (Annexure -| P/3) by which the Biock Education Officer, Ba.mnid!,h,.GanceJled the appointment ordera of tbe petitioners. . : : ;- 2. Learned counsei appearing ;for the petttioners submits 'that pursuant to the advertisernent the petitioners a'long:, with other candidates appiied .for appoihtment on the' posts pf Shiksha Karmi and Peon. After completlng the due ^rocess qf selection, by order dated 30-12-1996 appolntments qrders were passed. and the petltloners joined 'their respective jposts. HThereafter, 1 the petitioners discharged .their duties with |great sihcerity and honestiy.. However, aii of'a sudden by the impugned order dated 11 -2-1997 the appointment orders of ihe petltloners have > • been cancellad. 3. • Agalnst' the aforesaid. action, ths petjtioners j subraitted representation before ths authorities concerned, but no action has been taken on the same. Learned cou^se! :furt}ter subrriite that the Impugned removal order has been Dassfed'without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petit|oners and wlthout conductina any enquiry. The oi^erj has bejen passed wlthout'appljcatlon of mind; because the authorities have not at <- 4. 5. s. all appreciateci'thefact thst the petttioners were.apDQlnted in .accQrdance'-.with'- the;. 'constitutional : scheme ' of ejnptoyment; ., . ::..-:-::\ ; -;- • ;0n':.the-;;other hand, iearned counsel^ appearing for the State subm'its'that the.order doted;[11 -2-1.997;has been passed by the Biock''Education. Officer. QR the;basls of the .communlcation dated^ 29-1-1,997^(Annexuife. - :R/1) sent.by ,the 'Executive Director., Dlstriet Rural D,ev6jopmentAuthority,BJIaspur. 'Even otherwise, the appGlntmentj'oftli&^petitionersw^s oniy for.the session 1996-97; therefore,'after, the expiry of the said period they have no right for cootjnuation/reinstatement in service. Thus, the petitioners are not entitied to any relief. 1 have heard learned counsei.appearing forthe parties, perused the pieadings and the. documents'''appendedlthereto. •!t .is evident from.'the'communication dated 29-1-1997 (Annexure - R/1) of the ExeGytive DrectQr,i.DJstrict' Rural Deyeiopment Authority, Bilaspur, in ttie' appointment of the. petltioners/ Shiksha Karmis there .^(ere' so • mariy srregularities e.g. candidates belQDging^to ^ot|er .block developments have. b'een appointed^ thjl.j'^apDiicatiGris^.of'some' candidates ;have not registered 8nd'.s6me;can<dicSSes have not fulfiiSed-the requisite qualificatl.on.'The petitioners were appointed for the sesslon 199'6-97,'as.'is evjdent from the directidns mentioned in the BppGlntmentorderltself... j •| Be that ss It may, it is weil settled :princip!e^of law.that if the matter nas becQ.me infructuous on the; facts! of the-case and qyestlon' cereains to,..be. deeided 'for academic; purpose, lt"is not1 necessoFy :^Q :?exam?n8. "the-case,.as observed Supreme Court.- in .^'umpteen •1. number | of : decisions.. (See BashesharNath.'v.Oomnriissioner ot' Income. Tax,:.:De!hi and Rajastha.o apd. lanother1,.' Dliartlpakar Madart Lal. Agrawa! v. Rajiv-.:GandN , '/Secretary, Ministry: | of; Informatioii & Boradcasting, G©vt. of Iridia and | otliersj ¥. Crlcket ; AiR1959SC149 21987(Supp)SCC93 by Hon''b!e ;^ ^<f Gowri Assoclation of Bengai and others'5, State.of Manlpur-and others v. Charadam Manlhar Singh , /^mii Das v. State of Blhar^ and Prakasli Ssngh Sada! aiid another v. of Punjab andothers .) 1 7. Thss Court' cannot.adjudicate a matter which has already become infructuous.. as the appointment oflthe petitjonersv^as' for one academicsesslon 1996-97. Thus, no reiief' can' be grante'd to the petitioner. 8. AppSylng the' above stated weil settled princjples of law to the facts of the case on hand,lthls petition has nolmerit. The petition Is dismissed accordingiy. 9. There wili be no order asto costs. r Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge - 3 1995 (2) SCC 161 4 1999 (7) SCC 503 5 2001 (7) SCC 657 6 2007(1)3cci