IN THEIHGH COURTOFGHHAmSGARHAT^ttASPUR W.P. fS) No;: ^^ ^ OF20 PETmONER ^^. .^\u .^.ey' ...•• ^•£^(^ -.>'c^V^"' ••" .s*' ...-•^^•i?\.e ^'SeSPONDENTS : ^:- : • ^..^-,..^, '^a^ Ku. Suman Mishra, D/0 SnGyan Datt Misin-a, aged about 37 years, R/o NearAyyappa Mandir, Vnndavan Colony, Jagdalpur, Distt; Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattis^rfat through the Secretary of School Education Departinent, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) v<2. Qiaitinan,! ? C.Cr.; ^ EFofessiCTEjsjl ^.^}y@3Ea3maiigffit<in|i^l^BoaiE^^.C-;t^ '^^^'SS^ii^^i^^SSa^^'^^^'-^^^^^ C.G. PjRsipssional Board, ^-168, 'ragore Nagar, Raipur (e.G.) CoUeGtor Distt. pagdalpur) C.G. Bastar Janpad PancAayat Bastar fhrough llie Chief ExBcutii^ Officer, modc Bastar, IMstM; Bastar(C.G.) s ^.- WRTT PEmlQNUNDER AR'ERSI^22& OF THE CONSTITO'FIONOii'INDIA 1) PAKNCULARS OPTHE PE3H'IIONER: Aspercause title. 2) PAimCULARSQFTHERESEONDENTS As per cause tifle. L-'^a •5 HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONfSV N0.3321 OF 2008 PETITIONER Ku. SumanMishra RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artiele 226 ofthe Consffiution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. t, ^y ^w. il Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General fcr the State. Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocatsfor the respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 18tllday ofJanuary, 2010) 1) With the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the partfes, Vne petition is heard finally. 2) Bythispetition.thepetitionerseetethetollowingreliets: "10.1 That, this Mon'ble Court may graciously be •pteasea-':.:^:tff../,, issye... :-..a:.'.-; writ.., df mandamus/eertioran or ef alike nafaire to direct the respondents to correct the name of examination centre as well as centre of Janpad Panchayat with correct Code Numbers and fartter to rectity the raisteke thereafter deciare the resuit. 10.^ That, a command/direction may kindty be issued to produce the entire records pertaining to the case ofthe petitionerand appropriate action may kindly betekfin. 10.3 That, alternativety the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation ofthe pstitioner meefing her grievances and to teke appropriate steps. 10.4 That, the compensatory cost in tune of Rs.2,00,000/- may kindiy be awardsd to the petitioner against the respondents along with cost of the petition. 10.5 That, any other relief which this Hon'bie Court may deem frt also be awarded to the petitioner under the circumstances." L..L.iL!J£I i«*tia.Si3iKi ^.. 3) ^. 4) 5) ^) Learned counsel apDearing for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner has appiied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III. !n the appiication form the Centre Code has been mentioned as 106 Bastar, but inthe admission card the Centrs Code has been mentioned by the respondent authorities as 126 (Kuatonda, Dantewada). Thereafter the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and requested to rectify the said mistake. but the same did not fructifv. Even, in the internet resutt card aiso against the column D.Ed. it has been shown as "No" whereas the petitioner has completed the D.Ed. course and the said fact has also been mentioned in the appiication form itself. After declaration of the result, by raising alt of her grievances the petitipner submHted a detailed representation before the respondent authorities, butthe same has not yet considered and decided. Thus, this petition. Learned;counsel appeanng for the responderts No.2 and 3 submits that thefespohclerrt No.Stias already written to theC Janpad Panchayat, Baster^o makwnecessary amendments in ease of the petitioner byletterdated 28-11-2009 (Annexyre-A). Despite service ofnotice, respondent No.5 has notehosen toappear in ths matter. It apoeara that no steps have teen taken by ttie Chirf Executive OfRcer. The respondents No.4 & 5 are accordingty directed to take appropriate steps as recommended by the respondent No.3 and pass the orders as expeditiously as possible preferably wiUiin a period of three weeks. in view of foregojng, according to leamed counsel appeailng for the petitioner nothing sumves in fhis petition for adjudteation. Aceordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No orcler asto costs. Gowri Saus...l^ow 's.'. ludge