^^ ^^^s^i ''S^SiSSSS :' S3SS f'SSC '^g%^^^ IN;THEH0]'iBLE ^KE%^RfC^ffiat'I''I'ISGSBH;; .AIgBIfiftSPB^ ? it?:E:lefi.tioSl:(^i|^^'^i!2Qi| ^pE'n'nofER l^gf^aBBlilgU^ears^.'^.,.;;:^,,g gSl||SBt|g|§]|ri§ISagesiTwar.?^.; gi|Hg|t||S^|^^Willage'; g.@ad&. |%iige||]3a]-rsit.K6i-L(3.agaori,".Y' ;'Distric|gcBastar (e.e.),-:':.^' VERSUS RESPONDENTS l.'^F.StatelofGl-ihaftisgarh^.^ ^ Througti^ Ifs"SecFBf.ary^^. Department bf'ScUQol.^'.i .., Educafion, ' K. g;^.Kdawan ,,.1.;:^^ Kaipur^(e-G^r:.^,g^^ 2:.; ,.',DtsfnGt,Eauea:laoni<?fficEr;." ^:.1MslrtGt'Jagadalpiu-;(<2:.©.)^. 3.: - ' Bl6(il£'^u:Ga^h'0ffiGfer,^'^ :s,F'arasgaoH,^^^I^Disti-icf;; y,:;f;^^Ja^dal^uj-.:(@.(3.J4y?i^ ;:?'^®@EsB>S@»igjB%BIBElBaNBB8^ GQNSTi"i'wm®>ii!iW®i@®Mg8SK8ttK^'SSSWSSKW •tf- THE NATIJ'^^G^l^^.^vro^^^lflIlC^ : UOK^^:'6>®RE%WiB<S'tESS!^i®^@^ .Ki;|.®^'3:c:6<;^:.;Li^;siS;^;SS>i^..f:' »t liffi: •i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6868 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Khirendra Kumar State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Ashok Patil counsel forthe petitioner. ShriV.V.S.Murthy, Dy. AGforthe respondents/State. WRITPETITIQN UNDERARTICLE226 QFTHE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA ; ORDER (03.09.2010) Grievance of the petitioner is that his father nameiy Nageshwar who was working as Head Master in Block Development Education Officej'; Farsagaon, District Jagdalpur died on 14.3.1997 and at that time he was agec^; about nine years only. According to the counsel for the petitioner, after^attai! majority the petitioner made an application on 7.10.2007 for compassionat^i: appointment but the same has not yet been considered. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as perthe existing policy dated 10.6.1994, the petitionef is veFy much entitled forcompassionateappointment. According to the coynse| for the petitioner, he may be permitted to withdraw the present petitiony»itt| liberty to make a representation to the respondent No.2. He also seeks, ^ direction to the competent authority for deciding the said representation of the petitioner in accordance with lawwithin some stipulated period. i Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the case of the petitioner would be scrutinized properly by the competent authority and then only the orderthereon would be passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with , liberty as aforesaid. Ifthe petitioner makes a representation within a period of one montli! frotn today, the competent authority shall decide ttie same strictly in accordanci^ y with law as early as possible preferably within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on th^ merits of.the case and the competent authority would be free in deciding the representation ofthe petitioner on its own merits. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Kt