x @ BMsion §ench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$§UR WRIT PETITION [5]_NO. Igg /2009 : Dr. Urmila Shukla, wife of Mr‘. PETITIONER V MR. Shukla, aged 47% year's, Occupa’rion-Ser‘vice, Presanfly posfed as Assisfan’r Professor (Hindi), Governmem‘ ChhaHisgar‘h College, Raipur‘. RESPONDENTS: 1. S’rm‘e of Chha’r‘tisgar‘h, Through ’rhe Secreiary, Deparfmen’r of Higher Educafion, Science & Technology, Technical Edu/cafion, Secrefariof, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, W WRIT PETITION CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE OF INDIA 226 OF THE Roipur. {Governmenf Chhof’riSgarh College, Raipur, Through ifs Principal, Governmenf Chhaffisgarh College, Raipur. H IGH coun‘r os CHHATTIssARI—I AT’BILA§PQR \ DIVIsION BENcH: > ‘ HQN'EMI£:.M.QVPQV§EI4 “ ‘ HO‘N'aLE sHRI PRAsHA'NT KUMAR‘ MI‘sHRA 1.1; ‘ WRIT PETITION (s) No.1393 OF 20 ' 09 Dr. Urmila Shu‘kla Pcfi‘rioncr Responaenfs STaTe of C.6. and oThe'r-s. Present: '7 - T Mr. Rajeev Shrivas‘l’gva, Advqcafe for The peTiTioner. . \ Mr. Vinay Ha’r-H, Dy. Advocafe General wiThv Mis’s Degpalif Pgndey; P.L. for The Sia‘l'e. ‘ I . L ORAL JUbeMENT (Passed any“ Apr“. 2010) I.M;.7Quddusi. J: 1. Heard. ’. 2.This maf‘rer is équargly covered by The.,order, dafed 01.04.2010 passed by fhis. Cour-r in bunch of wriT peTifions leading case 0f which was W.P. (5) No.1164/06 and operaTive ’parT of which rends as under:- “7. Since The Madhya Pradcsh HighUCour-T hasadjudicafed Th maTTer in Thw/guge§ ofgi‘milarly ,sifua'l’ed candidafes fo the insfan'r writ peTiTionersLwe are of, The opinion ThaT we may leave if upon The,,5TaTe Government to Take fresh decision Taking info consideration The judgmenf and orderof the ’Madhya Pradesh High Court However, wi'rh regar3 To' seniorify, we are of The opinion fha'i since these pejrifioners could noT succeed in The exdminaTion conducTed by The P.S.C., The oandidaTes selected in ThaT parficular selecTion ‘1 I process in which Thepe‘l'i‘rioners could noT be cleared by The P.$.C. examinaTion. onnnoT become juniors To ThepeTiTioners and as such The STqTe Governme‘nT may also consider To e piace these pe‘ri'rioner-s in appropria‘re‘plwe in 'l'he sgniqrify list 8. The whola process, as men'l'ioned above, be reconsidered as“ ‘ ‘ early as‘pos'siHe on or before 31“ Oc'rober, 2010. ‘ 9. Needless to men'l'ion here ‘rho‘l' in case ,the pe'rifioners feel? aggrieved. by Thesdecisixon so taken by she State éovernmenf pursuanf f0 above d,irec1’ions, i‘r ,wi" be Vopen‘for them f0 Take recourse 1'0 law 10 A copy of ‘H'us order be supphed To fhe learned Sfa‘re Counsel for comphance 3. Accordingly, fhe ins‘fantwrif pe‘l'i'rionis also‘d‘isp'o‘sed of in ‘ ferms of the above quo‘red border. 4. Cerfified copy as per rules. Sd/— ..,.., I.M.Quddusi Judge 7 Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge / V