HSQHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BiLASPUR Writ Petition No. 297S of2Q03 P§t|t|oQM Sanjay Kumar Panda, S/o. Srl Ayocthya Prasad Panda, and about 24 years, Cast- Generai, Permanent Add. - C/o. Rajkumar Das Kharraghat, Raigarh (CG). Respondents Versus 1) State of Chhatlisgarh through Secretary, Rural Development Department, DX.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Chief Executh/e Officer. Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh (CG). 3) B.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh 4) Janpad Sadasya (B.D.C.) Sarangarh 5) Sub Divislonai Officer, Sarangarh (CG). 6) Padma Choudhar^ Contrad Teacher, Ciass !i, Govt. Schoo!, Ukhar, Sarangarh (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsei for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Dhiraj Wankhade, counsel the respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passedon this 12th dayofAugust, 2008 The petitioner, by this petitlon, impugns the vaiidsty of the appointment of respondent No«6 on the post of contract Teacher for a period of one year i.e., academic year 2003-2004. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the entire selection process was bad and that deserves to be quashed. 2) Slnce the appointment for a period of one year which has come to an end, going into the merits and examining the case as to whether a seiect iist was in accordance with Saw or not wiil be an exerclse Jn futllity. In the case on hand, even if the petitioner succeeds, no reiief can be granted as the \ —CLW ^ appointment of the respondent No.6 was made for one year i.e., academic year 2003-2004 which has come to an end. The principte of iaw has been Said down by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in a catena of decisions in the matters of Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of income-tax, Dethi and Rajashan and another1, Dhartipakar Madan Lai AgarwaS Vs. Rajiv Gandhi2, Secretary, Ministry of information & Broadcasting, Govt of India and others Vs. ^Cricket Association of Bengai and others , State of Manipur and others Vs. Chandam Manihar Singh4,Amrit Das Vs. State of Bihar^ and Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others . that the !lwe issue alone may be considered by the Court. The matter of academic interest without any reiief should not be considered. 3) In view of foregoing, wherein even if the seiect iist as weil as appointment of the respondent No-6 are quashed, no reliefcan be granted to the petitioner as the appointment of the respondent No.6 was made only for one year on contract basis which has come to an end. Thus, this petition has become infructuous. 4) Accordingiy, this petition is dismissed as having become Infructuous. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1 (AIR 1959 SC 149 2(1987(Supp)SCC93) 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161) 4(l999)7SCC503) 5 {(2001) 7 SCC 657} f) f t'/\ t\ t\ <~r\ t /<< .—i/-s •» ^