Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Asha Pandey vs Guru Ghasidas University 55 ... on 28 November, 2018
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Parth Prateem Sahu
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 786 of 2018
(Arising out of Order dated 02.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.4776 of 2005 by the
learned Single Judge)
• Smt. Asha Pandey W/o Shri S.P. Pandey, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Nariyal
Kothi, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Guru Ghasidas University Through The Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University,
Koni, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Dy. Registrar (Administration), Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Archana Saxena, Assistant Librarian, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
4. Ku. Afsha Ansari, Assistant Librarian, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent-University : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate ______________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 28.11.2018
1. Heard counsel for the Appellant, counsel for the Respondent - University.
2. Writ application of the present Appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.07.2018. The relief prayed therein was that the process initiated for appointment on the post of Assistant Librarian in furtherance to the advertisement dated 30.01.2004 had not been completed or finalized. Besides that she also raised a grievance that two persons have been appointed on the post of Assistant Librarian as an independent action and the Appellant was not considered for such appointment even though she had worked as a daily wager or on ad-hoc basis for a significant period of time. 2
3. From the perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it emerges that in the writ application the appointment or engagement of Respondents No.3 and 4 was not under challenge nor any details of the appointment so made was reflected in the writ application. The Court, therefore, concluded that no substantive right had been created.
4. Independent of what the learned Single Judge had had to say, after having heard counsel for the Appellant as well as the University, it emerges that the Appellant has not been in any kind of relationship with the Respondent- University since the year 2000. Besides that the status of the University has now changed from the State University to Central University. This has completely changed the rule of the game, therefore, no relief as such is required to be granted to the Appellant by interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra