AMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2194 OF 2006 PETITIONER Ashutosh Mishra Son of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, aged abou 36 years, Resident of 211, Samta Colony, Raipur, (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Kushabhau Thakre Journalism and Mass Communication University, Through: Its Registrar, Kota Stadium, Raipur (C.G.). Sanjay Dwivedi, Son of Shri Parmatma Nath Dwivedi, aged about 31 years, Resident of A-2 Anmol Flats Avanti Vihai‘, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). Dr. Sahid Ali Son of Shri Hidayat Ali, aged about 41 years, Resident of Plot No. 350, Prashant Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, (A.P.). Present Address:- C/o Smt. Gopa Bagchi, Department of Journalism Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (C.G.). t @69 5. Vice Chancellor, Kushabhau Thakre Journalism and Mass Communication University, Kota Stadium, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S) AND OTHER ORDENSI OR DIRECTION £51 ETC. Present :- Dr. D.N. Verma, Registrar, Kushabhu Thakre University of Journalism & Mass Communication, Raipur, is‘also present. (Passed on this 15‘ day of March, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement published on 20-7—2005 (Annexure — P/3) the petitioner submitted an applicationfor appointment on the post of ’ discrimination. lt is stated, at the bar, that the tenure of the post, advertised for the post of Reader (Journalism & Mass Communication), was one year, which has already come to an end, way back in the year 2007. Thus, in the facts situation, this writ petition has become infructuous and the decision, if any, in this matter would be for academic purpose oniy. 4. Be that as it may, even if the substantial question of law is involved, it is well settled principle of law that if on the facts of the case the petition has become infructuous, the academic question cannot be decided by the Court and the Court should refrain from entertaining such petitions. (See Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and anotherl, Dhartipakar Medan La/ \\ . 1AIR 1959 so 149 2 1987 (Supp) soc 93 \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2194 OF 2006 [/1 (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. v ' Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Rajeev Shrivas‘tava, Advocate. for the respondent No.2. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the respoidnnet No.4. ORDER ORAL) r Reader (Journalism & Mass Communication) in the respondent No.2 University. The petitioner appeared in the interview, but he was not selected for the said post. The petitioner alleges arbitrariness & Agrawa/ vs. Rajiv Gandhiz, Secretary, Ministry of /nformation & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of \ i i I l I PETITIONFR Ashutosh Mishra , RESPONDENTS Versus Bengal and others3, State of Manipur and others vs. Chandam Manihar Singh", Arnit Das vs. State or Bihar5 and Prakash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and othersa). lt is well-settled principle 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 appropriate facts arise. 6. Looking from other angel, the petitioner has not furnished any material on record, pointing out discrimination & arbitrariness, warranting interference. In normal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment ever after his selection and in the case on hand, the petitioner was not'selected. 7. This Court in Khirodhar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others7, relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court held that" it is trite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible right 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 persons. " Further this Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Othersa held that “the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant 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 process." 9. Applying the well—settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. ln the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto‘ costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge he 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161 4 (1999) 7 SCC 503 5 (2001) 7 SCC 657 6 (2007) 1 scc 1 '7 WP (S) No.2057 orzoog 8 2007 (3) MPHT 22 (CG)