^^yn^- ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No.^2A2010 SB PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Smt.Subhyahtani Chowdhary^W/o Shri. B.Nath, aged about 56 years, Working as Assistant leacher E.B.A. Mission Primary (Nursery) School, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (CG) 1. State OfChhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Scool Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, District-Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Director ofPublic Instruction, Pensan Bada, ^ District-Raipur (CG) 3. District Education Officer Jagdalpur District-Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAFQR THE ISSUANCE MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DEEMEDFIT- ,..^^^^.: ^IICTI tl»^I^» B^ST -qi-qK-iq, ^>xi1^<!<o, fs|<ni-M^< ^....U.e;.^..GA..-,.<?.i.^4^, ,200 ^TI^T XT=t15F (^q?^<^T) ^T^t "^T f<4Jch 'cT^IT ^ij^i sr»*iic»> ^STTW^ft^^lT^i 8B : HON9BLE MR. JUSTICB PRItENKE.R DIWAKBR 29.10.2010 Shri Azad Siddiqui, couusel though she is entitled for two adv^ has not been passed on to her foij <^nt<n<ft<i TfR^!f '^ 'fex^ <F»i^i< ^3fl^?^T^l tbr the petitioner, Shri.Ajit Sio.gh, P,L. for tiie ^tate. Grievaace of the petitioner |o the prcsent petition is fhat liice incrementsbut fb.e same no reasons. He submits that number of identical xriatters hav^ been decided by fhis Court where the petitioners have ^een peiTnitted to file a representa.ti.o-n, copy of one suchj ord.er has been fil.ed by' th.e petitioner as Anuexure P/5, Counsel for fhe petitioner ^ubniits fhat the judginent of If.AsS&a Saxesaa ¥s»state of IBCI 59 a.nd orders pa^ssed by this 'Court ia the case of Yashi^asit Kiimar Bh.aradwaj ¥s. Miisiicipa! Corporatioiis Durg & 96 aiid io. the case. of Salil the Suprenie Court io. fhe case cj M.P. & Others, 2009 |III) MEPJR l&aother, 2006 (2| MPJR-CJ |Kast Qiia.gh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ^ Ofehers, W.P.(SI ^©.6257^08,wlierem benefit |en graa.ted on tli.e basis that of two advaiice iiicreraents has b<| B.Ed, degree was obtaio..ed, is als<] petitioner, as tlie circuJars sougl| who had obtained B.Ed/BTI Tralning, like the petitioner, He permi.tted to witlidraw th.is fiirther submits tliat he niay bd petition wi.th tiberty to inake| respon.den.t. No.3 for decidm.g t.he ^ a.pp'li.cabl.e to fhe case of the ..t to e.x1:en.d ben.efi.t to those representation before the am.e in accordaiice witli law. r ^ f-- XI-HC—78 '3^T 'M4l<4l<n^, '^ftWT^, [a|dl<!-l^< fc *ll1tfll (b*lT<q'» -(?-U))$^--£^^l ^ "•^1200 ^TI^T 'q^TSF (^rf^5!^) 3?1^T "^T f<4Jch ^H 3T!^?T 5h*(icr) 'FRnW^ft^ 31T^FF On the otlier hand, counsel b.as no objectiou tf tlie petitioner Lhe saaie is decided in accordaiice ft).r the State sub.mits tliat :he |nakes a representation aiid. ^ith law. In view of above, the petitio3l 'Iiis petition wit!:i Mberty to file| 'espondent N0.3 and in tum, the ^ :o decide the representauon so flledj ^er is peiTaitted to withdraw representation before fhe tespondent N0.3 is expected L m accordance with law. <ftH(<n<i1'f 'WT^ff ^ fe^ ^-^K irsiRww^T Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge