1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASAPUR WRIT PETITOIéIO. g [flé /2005 PETITIONER:— Kanika Das Kispotta W/O—P. Kispotta ,Aged about 34 years, Occupation— Teacher, R/O— Ward no. 4, Kasturba Nagar Kargil Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1 RESPONDENTS :— ) State of Chhattisgarh Through:—Secreta1y Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Rajpur (C.G.) District Education Officer Bilaspur (C.G.) 3) Secretary . Church of Christian Mission of India Kududand Bilaspur (C.G.) Principal, Shepherd School Kududand Bilaspur (C‘G..) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA. \s@ ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGAmI AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3426 pf 2005 Petitioner Kam'ka Das Kispotta Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8:. others ‘WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. mihohl, J. Ms Hamida Siddquc, Advocate for the‘peu'tioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondeiits No, 1 end 2. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. ORDER (Deal) (Passed on this l7“ day ofFebruary, 2010) Heard. . Leaxned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advem'sement published on 19.6.2005 (Annexure’ P/ 1) the petitioner submitted an applican'on for appointment on »the post of contract Teacher in the Iespondents No. 3 and 4‘ school. The petiu'oner appeared in the interview on 27.6.2005 but she was not selected for the post of contract Teacher. . The gxievance of the petitioner is that she is more meritorious than the other candidates who were selected and appoa'nmd by the respondents No. 3 and 4 as contract Teacher. The petin'oner alleges arbitrariness, discrimination and favoritism on the basis of cast and cteed. t . It is stated at the bar that the tenure of the post, advenised for contract Teacher, was one year, which has already come to an end, way hack in the year 2006.- Thus; in the facts situation, this $3 writ petiu'on has become muctuous and the decision, if any, in this matter would be for academic pmpose only. .4. I have heani learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. It is well settled that if a case has become inhuctuous on the facts of the case and question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessaly to examine the case. ( See Basheshar Hath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan ' and anotherl, Dhartipakar Madan La! Agatw‘al Vs. Rajiv Gnndhiz, Secretary, Ministxy of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of lndia and others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others3, State of Manipur and others Vs. Chandam Manihar Singh‘, Arnit Das Vs. state of Bihar5, Pralmsh Sing]: Badal and another Vs. state of Punjab and others‘ ). 6. It is well settled pn'nciple of law that the question of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon and the same should be left open for adjudication, whenever the apptbpn'ate facts an‘se. 7. Looking non: other angle, the petitioner has not fmnished any material oniecord, pointing out discrimination, arbitrariness, warrannng interference. In nonnal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible light to appointment even ader her selection and in the‘case on hand the petitioner was not selected in the interview. This Court in w.P.(S)No.2os7/ 2008 (modhar smgh Vs. 3mm of 1 {A.1.R. 1959 s.c. 149} 2 { 1987 (Supp) s.c.c. 93} 3 {(1995) 2 sec 16 1} 4 {(1999) 7 sec 503} 5 {(200 1) 7 scc 657} 6 {(2007) 1 scc .1} R7‘AA Thakur Chhattisgarh 85 others), mlying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that “It is trite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible night to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointment, no ’writ can be issued directing the respondents] authorities to give appointment to the petitioner or any other pelsons". 8. Fuxther, this Court in Rajah K at, Demm Vs. The Life > Insurance Corporation of India & others" held that “the - V petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pulsuant to his selection” and that “no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection prowss.” 9. Applying the above stated well settled principles of law, this ~petition has no merit. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order asto costs. 7 Satish K. Agniimn‘i 7 { 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22(CG)} <