« <s; V (U2^ ^ ^ivTsIon Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRITAPPEAL N0. ;^?l£i 5ZPJL oFaeBEFflt-— ^jST^ ARISING OUT OFORDER, DT.^Zlfl2l2010 PASSED IN W. P. (S) NO./S691_0^20ig^^l|T7 !^-— APPELLANT (PETITIONER) RESPONDENTS "1 ^ . :^*r ^y^S^ IV" Baldau Prasad Dubey @ Baldeo Prasad Dubey S/o shri Badri Prasad Dubey, aged about - 39 years, R/o Sarsiwan, Post - Sarsiwan, Tehsil - Bilaigarh, District - Raipur (M. P.) VERSUS ^ 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through - The Secretaiy (Tribal), Harijan & Backward Classes Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal(M. P.) 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Mantralay, Bhopal (M. P.) 3. The District Organizer, The Tribal Welfare Department, For Collector, Raigarh (M. P.) ^" 4. The Dy Director (Education) (The Then District Education Officer) Education District Mahasamund ( Raipur ) Writ Aoneal Under Section - 2(1) of the Chhattisearh Hieh Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 The a'ppellant most respectfully begs to submit as under :- \^. ^.'\' \y->' Sub.ject in brief:- The appel'lant (petitioner) is challenging the impugned v^' order, dt. 08/09/2010 passed in W. P. (S) No. 1841 of 2005 by the learned Single Bench of the High Court^ofC. G. Hon'b.le (ShrT Manindra Mohan Shrivastav, Jjlwhereby the writ petition Under (^^ '1-z'" ''^ ^v f:i- '.'^S^S ^ % ^ s / f ;!'.,,. "fV^Y^ '""'^•^^'^- •s? ADpeSSant HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri & Hon'bie Shri Radhe Shvasn SnaUQaL.y. WritADpea! No.239/2011 Baldau Prasad Dubey @ Baldeo Prasad Dubey Vs. ResDO"dents Ths Stats of Madhva Prsdesh and oiners. Present: Shri Aman Kesharwani, counsel for the appellanf. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Go\/t. Advocate for ths Ste1 ORALORDER (11.07.2011.) This intra-court appea! arises from the order dated 8 September, 2010 passed by learned Sing!e Judge in W.P.(-S) No.1841/2005 (Baidau Prasad Dubey © Ba'deo Prasad Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others). 2. Facts, in brief, as projected by the appeHant, for disposing of this appeal, are that the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed as Assistant Teacher "ide order dated 06.02.1984, however, soon thereafter, impugned order was passed on 27.02.1984 (Annexure-A/6), by, which, appointment of the pet'tioner was cancel'ed on the ground that upon verificatiQn from the original mark sheet, it was found that the appQintment order h.as been issued in the name of Ba'deo Prasad Dubey whereas mark- sheet has been Issued i" the "ame of Baldau Dubey. Th.e petitioner made representations stating that he is "ne and the same persons and his correct nsms Is Baidsu Prssad "l^^i T?]iMS^B^I^^ a«. 3. According to the writ petitiQner, when his grievances were not redressed, he preferred an application before Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A.NQ.1200/99 "n 24.6.1999. After abolition of the Tribunai, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.(S) No. 1841/2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.09.2010 ho'ding that the petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that after passing of the impugned termination order, the writ petitioner has not taken any steps except by filing one or two representations. The learned Sing!e Judge after relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition on th.e ground of delay and laches. 5. Be that as it may, entertaining such petition is a '.""ste of time of the Court. It ctogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in consider'ng legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We are of the considered view that the 'earned Sing!e Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. 6. !n view of the above;the writ appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. SHABMA. Judge BilIMBBBSIBnai