JITU PORTE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/1147/2022
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010044342022
Filing Number
WPS/2429/2022
Filing Date
03-Feb-2022
Registration No
WPS/1147/2022
Registration Date
16-Feb-2022
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )
Sub-Category
REMOVAL / DISMISSAL / TERMINATION FROM SERVICE. ( 603 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JITU PORTE
Adv. RAKESH KUMAR MANIKPURI,Ravindra Sharma,Ravindra Sharma, ,Amrita Sharma,Ravindra Sharma
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
3.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
4.Director/Directorate,
-
5.Joint Director,
-
6.Collector,
-
7.District Education Officer
-
8.Principal/Head Master,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
Summary of WPS No. 1147/2022 - Jitu Porte v. State of Chhattisgarh The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to his service termination. Porte was appointed on compassionate grounds after his father's death but was ineligible because his mother was already in government service under Clause 6(A) of the compassionate appointment policy. The court upheld the termination, finding that Porte concealed his mother's employment in his application and affidavit, constituting material misrepresentation that warranted dismissal without prior hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-Feb-2022
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalView PDF
-
21-Feb-2022
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
-
03-Feb-2022
Case filed
Registration No. WPS/1147/2022
Summary of WPS No. 1147/2022 - Jitu Porte v. State of Chhattisgarh The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to his service termination. Porte was appointed on compassionate grounds after his father's death but was ineligible because his mother was already in government service under Clause 6(A) of the compassionate appointment policy. The court upheld the termination, finding that Porte concealed his mother's employment in his application and affidavit, constituting material misrepresentation that warranted dismissal without prior hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts