BUIU ^i^SI' r'i ::R;: ass^-SZ3'Z2l«^ }i ^fo~T - BEFORE THS M.P. STA'IE ADMINISTM'riVE, TR'EHJNAL, JAmLPUR. > • ••* GA. N0. 3 APPLICANTs RESPOI-IDHiTS:, 1. 2. T.R. Kurre S/o Shr.i C.P. Kurre, , Working as Block BevelepmeEit Of-ficer, Marwahi. Di-stric-fc Bilaspur (M.P.). 7/s ' State oi M.P. -througM tiaeSecretary, Scheduled Caste, Scfaeduied Tribes & Backward Classes Welfare DepartaeBt, Mantraiaya, BJaopal. ' Publl-c Service Commlssioa, Indore. APPi.ICAIIGN UNDER SECTION ,19 OF 'EHE ABMINISSiATIVE TRIBUNAL'S; ACT,l_1'g8§s :: . ; " :: :- : - ! ' 1 : ., . ^ M 1 2. Part.l,cular_B_Df tbe,ap_£lj,can1:s As detai-letl in cause'tltle above. Particulars^o^the^respoaden.t^! As detailed in cau-se title above. Par t icul_ar s _ of o£der_a£a^^st_^igb_the application_is maetes^ (i)- Ordgr No. F-1(k)75/80/1/25, (iit-Dated; 13.2.1995. {ii-i)—Passed by the Respondent No.1 (iv)- Sub.j ect __in br ie:E^- • By the impugned order AnRexure A-1 , fhe rsenqutry has been: ordered agaiast the pB±xti:appiicant. • 4. Jurisdiction of the '.Tribunals Ihe applicant deelares thet -tbe aspKgKaa order against •which the instant' application bas been made 1s wi.thin the .jur isdictiB& ot tbe Hon' ble TrifiuBal. 5. imit^ation; The applicant further deelares that matter with regard to this applica-t!Lon has been made is within tjlie limitation as pE.escribed U/s 21'oi' e AdBil.nistrative Trl-bunal's Act, 6. I'acts.ofthe&ase; . ' ^ ~ - - The fact.s of —t;he.caserare glven belowi— . ' " \ ^^ iia' lliiila phjilaiSiS e :C-22 311^1 ^il t<ilict> 4i^t sti*i yfsa syi 'S^ -^WM^, Sfll'M'IS. f»«1l<11< 5 NIWfT aillch 3T|^T "q=ra? ,^.^J£^ •I^^T- 200 an^i ?(CTIW ^ito SB: Hon'ble Shri Maniadra Mo 04.01.2010 When fhe luatter was caUed petitioner aud the matter was rouud, none appears for the peti] Shri P.R. Pataakar, State/respondent No. 1. None for resoondent No.2. By this petition, the petitic| Aiuiexure A-l, dated 13th Febrt< was ordered agaiast tsim. By directed to be completed witTiin | iaterim. order against fhe order li Retum has also been filed. Coiisidering fhe natare of col taking into consideration the st appeanug for tfae State fhat the| as there was no iaterun ordej iastant petition is disinissed, petitioner to revive fhe petition if A copy of fhis order be seiit t( for hearing, noue appeared for the [passed over. Even in the second .Uoner. Pafiel Lawyer appears for the ch)<i[<n<ni ^i*ic?f ^ T^^ i^\^\< ^aifSgiT 311^1 iaa Shrivastava, J. .c|ner has chaUeaged the order of |ary, 1995, by wtuch fresh enquiiy ^he said ori.er, 'fresh iiiquiry was |a period of 3 monfhs. There is no l.ader chaUeage iii the petition. [itroversy and passage oftime aad jateiaent made by leamed counsel enquiry raay have beeu concluded ia favour of fhe petitioner, the however reservm.g Uberty to fhe cause of action stiU survwes. fhe petitioner. ^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^<av^ ctfa [TT^?f^f