Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 37]

Chattisgarh High Court

Hari Shankar Sai Painkara vs C.G. Public Service Commissionandors. ... on 15 January, 2019

Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi

                                                            1


                                                                                                 NAFR
                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                           Writ Petition (S) No. 1070 of 2008

                      Hari Shankar Sai Painkara, S/o Shri Basudhar Ram, Aged about 36 years, R/o
                        Qtr. No. MIG-1/134, M.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
                                                                                          ---- Petitioner
                                                          Versus
                     1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar
                        Road, Raipur (C.G.)
                     2. Controller, (Exams) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (C.G.)
                     3. Sub Divisional Officer, Patthalgaon, District Raigarh (now Jashpur) (C.G.)
                     4. Tahsildar, Patthalgaon, District Raigarh (now Jashpur) (C.G.)

                                                                                       ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Ms. Richa Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Order on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 15.01.2019

1. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner informs the Court that the writ application has become infructuous, therefore, he does not press the writ application.

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/PSC and the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State do not dispute the said position.

3. In view of the above, the writ application is dismissed as having become infructuous.

                                -                                                     Sd/-

                                                                            (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)
                                                                                Chief Justice
Brijmohan