'^" if S •'l|t^!^la>^y ''S-anarfT .^•'^. \\ '&^^'' y y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition (S) No.1735 of2011 Mansukh Kerketa S/o Shri Nahun Kerketta, aged about 53 years, Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, District Sarguja (C.G.) R/o Panchashil Nagar, Baloda Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus 1. The High Court of C.G. Through Registrar General, Bilaspur 2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Law Secretary, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 3. The District and Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja, C.G. 4. The Union of India, Through the Secretary Law and Legal Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi, India {Writ petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: No.4. (i/ir. S.C. Verma, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.1 & 3. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.2. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent Division Bench: - Kon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ ORAL ORDER (18-7-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 16-3- 2011 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Sarguja at Ambikapur and vires of Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rutes'). The petitioner has also claimed relief of permitting him to discharge his judicial work. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition, order impugned and other documents. -![-H /y ,^-''s^. ^. i'' (8. '" 'i viSla,: F ~l"""i®i A -y/ V:»,f~".aS!s •J%^,^^>" ^ <y '• 3. During the course of argument, counsel for the parties frankly admit that exercising the power conferred under Rule 13 ofthe Rules, the petitioner has been retired in public interest. In these circumstances, the reliefs elaimed by the petitioner in paras 10 (b) & (c) of the writ petition have become infructuous and the relief claimed in para 10 (d) of the writ petition has become academic, without any cause of action. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 4. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of petition, if any, filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the vires of Rule 13 of the Rules along with the relief against the order dated 26-3- 2011 passed by the State regarding retirement ofthe petitioner in pubic interest. Sd/- I 1 : sd'~. I.P.Sharma |i R.N. CTandrakar Judge "It-i r—1—— .«--'-