IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.t W.P. No.........^.^l.&.../2006 PETITIONER: ^f" "••'. .','"s^; <<-.^ 1. ^^ A~ RESPONDENTS: VERSUS 6-^ ^1-' ^^?. ^'^/ is^^s'^./e x^v ' ^ ^y/ .M/ w ^-yy <^.- 2. 3. Dr. Smt. Vandana Kumar, Aged about 42 years, W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar, Occupation Assistant Professor (Hindi), R/o F/9, New RDA Colony Tikrapara, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Higher Education, Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. Science College Premises, Raipur (C.G.) The Principal, Government College Abhanpur, Dista-ict Raipur, (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTTIE CONS'HTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WKITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITION^: As stated above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As stated above in the cause title. LS*tW^avffig(cA)es&ff^aK&s*'!eBt,?=K(fi3!EiSfi ^S*;^y^HS&^.J^^-;-vrT- ";-."--•:.^-:' •-.•• .-\ •••^- ««*.-.i»ur*a.^».s; --riffl.;-,..^.^^.^-.-.,.-,;.^;.,..,^,^ ,), -B,nn"ei"'.B-,wf(t,s<n-i'<w;f.--w;;.Wff¥6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 2440 of 2006 639 Petitioner Respondents Dr. Smt. Vandana Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for State/respondents ORDER (Passed on 23rd day of June,2010) Per I.M. QucMusi, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that this matter is squarely covered by the order dated 01.04.201 O passed by this court in buhch of writ petitions leading case of which was W.P. No. 1868/2006 (Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) and operative part of which reads as under: "7. Since the Madhya Pradesh High Court has adjudicated the matter in the cases of similarly situated candidates to the instant writ petitioners, we are of the opinion that we may leave it upon the State Govemment to take fresh decision taking into consideration the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, with regard to seniority, we are of the opinion that since these petitioners could not succeed in the examination conducted by the PSC, the candidates selected in that particular selection process in which the petitioners could not be cleared by the PSC 1. 2. 3. (^ ?\.. "-Sl' examination, cannot become juniors to the petitioners and as such the State Government may also consider to place these petitioners in appropriate ptace in theseniority list. 8. The whole process, as mentioned above, be reconsidered as early as possible on or before 31 October.2010. 9. Needless to mention here that in case the petitioners feel aggrieved bythe decision so taken by the State Government pursuant to above directions, it witl be open for them to take recourse to law. 10. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned State Counsel for compliance." Accordingly the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the above quoted order. Certified copy as per rules. i! ;:v Sdf- M. Quddusl Judge sdl- N.K-'judge f'it;