ROOPBATI BAIGA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/8396/2022

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010388402022

Filing Number

WPS/21392/2022

Filing Date

23-Nov-2022

Registration No

WPS/8396/2022

Registration Date

25-Nov-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

SELECTION, APPOINTMENT & RECRUITMENT INCLUDING EXAMINATION, INTERVIEW. ( 614 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROOPBATI BAIGA

    Adv. AKHILESH KUMAR,Smt. NEHA SHAH,Smt. NEHA SHAH, ,Kishan lal Sahu,Smt. NEHA SHAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.The Collector

  3. 3.The Project Officer Women and Child Development Project

  4. 4.The Chief Executive Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition filed by Roopbati Baiga against the State of Chhattisgarh and other respondents (Women and Child Development Department officials) as infructuous. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that due to passage of time, the petition had become infructuous and no longer served any practical purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

  4. 16-Jan-2023

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  5. 05-Dec-2022

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  6. 28-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 23-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/8396/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition filed by Roopbati Baiga against the State of Chhattisgarh and other respondents (Women and Child Development Department officials) as infructuous. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that due to passage of time, the petition had become infructuous and no longer served any practical purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case