Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/813/2026 of URMILA BAIGA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, on 21 September 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 813 of 2026 Urmila Baiga Wife Of Shri Rupram Baiga, Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Kududand Mata Chowraha Gali No. 4, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department
CGHC010312092026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 813 of 2026
Urmila Baiga Wife Of Shri Rupram Baiga, Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Kududand Mata Chowraha Gali No. 4, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Parisar, Raipur District Raipur , Chhattisgarh 4 - Anusuchit Janjati Praman Patra Uccha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti Through Its Secretary, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Parisar, Raipur District Raipur , Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Joint Director Education Bilaspur, Division, (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)
:
Ms. Richa Sahu, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
22/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This is an application for restoration of WPS No. 5241/2009, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.07.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 22.07.2026, when the matter was called for hearing, due to unavoidable reasons, he could not appear in the case, therefore, the same has been dismissed for want of prosecution. He would further submit that the matter pertains to the termination of the petitioner and consideration by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, which requires adjudication on merits, therefore, the writ petition may be restored and it may be heard on merits.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the dispute involved in the writ petition, and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. WPS No. 5241/2009 is restored to its original number.
5. The Registry is directed to list the said WPS No. 5241/2009, as the writ petition itself is of the year 2009. Let WPS No. 5241/2009 be listed for hearing in the next week.
6. With this observation, the present MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok