DHARAMPAL SINGH SWANAKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — WA/476/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th June 2026.
CNR: CGHC010157592026
Filing Number
WA/9111/2026
Filing Date
16-Apr-2026
Registration No
WA/476/2026
Registration Date
20-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )
Sub-Category
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ( 613 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
18-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DHARAMPAL SINGH SWANAKAR
Adv. KRISHNA KUMAR DEWANGAN,DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH,DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH, ,DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
2.The Deputy Director, District -Raigarh
-
3.The District Education Officer,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Jun-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Dharampal Singh Swanakar's writ appeal filed 137 days late against the State of Chhattisgarh's education officials, rejecting his condonation of delay application. The court held that poverty and legal ignorance do not constitute sufficient cause under law, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any circumstances within the limitation period preventing timely filing, finding only inaction and subsequent late consultation with legal aid services. The judgment reaffirmed that limitation rules serve public policy, delay cannot be excused as generosity, and substantial justice must not prejudice the opposite party's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Jun-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
-
16-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WA/476/2026
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Dharampal Singh Swanakar's writ appeal filed 137 days late against the State of Chhattisgarh's education officials, rejecting his condonation of delay application. The court held that poverty and legal ignorance do not constitute sufficient cause under law, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any circumstances within the limitation period preventing timely filing, finding only inaction and subsequent late consultation with legal aid services. The judgment reaffirmed that limitation rules serve public policy, delay cannot be excused as generosity, and substantial justice must not prejudice the opposite party's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts