{/62JW A‘ @ // 1 // EN "EHE HEGH CQURT OFJUDECATUREAT BILASPUR (CG) W. P. (S) No. gm /2009 PETETEGNER : w/ Jairudra Kare S/o Shri Jatadhari Kare Age about 52 years, R/o Mata Kasturba, Aadiwasi Kanya Aashram Barsur, Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh Through— Secretary, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe t 1 and Bakward Class Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) RESPQWENTS l . 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Development Raipur (CG) The Secretary, Mata Rukamani Sewa Sansthan Samiti; Dimrapal, Tah. & District-Jagdalpur (C.G.) / WE’EWGNUNDERARHCTES226OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF TNDEA ll l. Particulars of the Petitioner : As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. Particulars efthe Resgondents z As mentioned above in the cause title. ,. @ W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5248 of2009 PETITIONER Jaimdra Khare. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 14 day of September, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant petition is f squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Smt. A.Lall v. State &: Othersj, thus the be permitted to make a of Chham‘sgarh petitioner may representation to decide his case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification asto whether the respondent No. 3-Institute is a Govemment Aided school and the petitioner is a teacher within the sanctioned strength. . Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks nom the date of receipt of the representation. 3. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.“ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2007 (1) BLJ 265