l? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.: HQN!BLEMr^USTICE^UNHJ<UMAR^^ HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.P. SHARIVSA APPELLANT WRIT APPEAL N0.186/2011 Ashutosh Mishra, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Aged about 41 years, R/o H. No.211, Samta Colony, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPO^jDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Kushabhau Thakre Journaiism and Mass Communication University, Through Its Registrar Kota Stadium Raipur (C.G.) Sanjay Dwivedi, S/o Shri Parmatma Nath Dwivedi, Aged about 36 years, R/o A-2, Anmol Flats, Avanti Vihar, Teiibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Dr. Shahid Aii S/o Shri Hidayat Ali, Aged about 46 years, R/o Plot No.350, Prashant Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabacl (A.P.) Present Address: Reader, Mass Communication, Kushabhau Thakre Journalism and Mass Communication Universtity, Kota Stadium, Rajpur (C.G.) Vice ChanceJlor, Kushabhau Thakre Journalism and Mass Comr«iunication University, Kota Stadium Raipur (C.G.) WRJT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTSSGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISJON BENCH)ACT.20Q6 Appearance: Mr. Virendra Sharma, Counsel for the appeliant. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. r^ ^'%,, {%-^ ^ass-.S^ WRIT APPEAL N0.186/2011 ^ ORALORDER (29.04.2011) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard on admission. Being aggrieved with the order dated 1 of March 2011 passed in W.P. No.2194/2006, the appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal. The appellant/petitioner had filed the said writ petition chailenging the legality and vaiidity of selection to the post of Reader (Joumalism and Mass Communication) in respondent No.2-University. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 1st of March 2011, the learned Ssngle Judge observed that the tenure to the post was 1 year, which has already come to an end way back in the year 2007. The learned Single Judge held that in the fact situation, the writ petition had become infructuous and the decision, if any, in the matter would be for academic purpose only. The learned Single Judge relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and declined to interfere in the writ petition in the above facts and circumstances ofthe case. After hearing leamed counsel for the appeilant and after going through the impugned order passed by the learned Singte Judge as also the records of the writ petition, we find no good ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. _^_^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge