HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI1A8PUR :*^ PETITIONER RE8PONDENT8 1. WRTT PETmON No. 3866 of2005 Smt. Savitri Bai Khande W/o Annulal Khande (Samvida Shikshak, Grade III) Aged about 25 years, R/o Village Sin^m Tehsil Taldiatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) VER8U8 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throu^i: The Secretary, Panchayat and Graniin Development Department D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Additional Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) 3» The Sub Divisional OfiReer, (Revenue) Kota District Bilaspw (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Offieer, Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(C.G.) 6. The Gram Panchayat Udela, Tlirou^i Its Sarpanch, Tahsi! Takhatpur, District Bilaspur(C.G.) 7. Ku. Chanq>a Sevak, D/o Kamta Prasad Sevak, Aged about 26 years, R//o Village Singhri, Tahsil Takhapur, District Bilaspur WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF TE1E CONSTITmiON OF IMDIA SB: Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Asrihotri,J. Present: Shri C.P.Lahre, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Anui Sao, Govermiient Advocate for tfie State. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 7. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the intervenor - Rajesh Kumar Kurrey QRALORDER (Passed OQ 10m day of September, 2008) The petitioner was appointed on conlract basis for one academic session i.e. 2003-2004 by order dated 22.08.2003 (Annexure P/3). It was clearly mentioned in the appointment order fhat the appointment would come to an end on April 2004. The appointment ofthe petitioner was challenged before the Sub Divisional Qfficer by fhe respondent No. 7. The Sub Divisional Offlcer, by order dated 2.11.2004 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the ^^^s^ Aniit -2- application, holding fhat tiie appoiataaent ofthe petitioner was legal and m accordance wilfa law. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 7 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur being Panchayat Appeal No. 10/A-89/04-05. The Additional Collector, Bilaspur, by judgment and order dated 27 July, 2005 (Aimexure P/l), quashed Ihe order passed by the Sub Divisional OfiTicer, holding lliat fhe appomtment ofthe petitioner was not in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred ttiis petition uiider Article 226 of fhe Constitution oflndia impugnin^ the order dated 27 July, 2005 passed by tifcie Additional Collector, Bilaspur, wherein the appointment of petitioner was held as illegal. This Court, on 2.9.20055 stayed the operation of the impu^ied order dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure P/l^ Thereafter, according to leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitionCT, fhe petitioner continued to work on the said post as Contract Teacher. The initial appointment of the petitioner was for one aGademic session, ending on April 2004and fhe petitioner has beensuocessfyl in completing his term ofappomtment.At this stage, this petition has become infiuctuous. The question involved herein is of academic interest which cannot be adjudicated upon when the petition has become infmctuous on facts. The appointment ofthe petitioner has ah-eady come to an end, Th^refore, no farther reliefcan be granted. In view of Ae foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge