^). INSL BcS'SCrl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION f^)/NO. PETITIONERS ^>-o RESPONDENT ^ 1. Tilak Raj Shrivas S/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Shrivas, R/o Post Dongakoharod, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) / 2. Ku. Suloochna Kalar D/o Ambikalal C.S.E.B. Colony, SF 499, Korba, District.- Korba (C.G.) VERSUS u^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat 8s Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2. Thc Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HEGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR PETSTIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT FCTiTiON (S) N0.7150F 2011 'ilak Raj Shnvas & Another versus State of Chhaaisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 228 of ihe Consiituiion of india! Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnfhotri, J. Present;- Shri J.P. Shuk!a, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N. Roy. Panei Lawver ror the State, 3. r~i '•---• SiU (Passed on this 7"' day of February, 2011) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners obiained D.S.E. (Dipioms 1n Special Education) certificate from Manloai Un'versl'Ey- The authoclties whiie •f;" considersng the case OT cne petiuonere tor appointmenx on the posi of Shlksha Karmi-!!!, has not corssidered the certincate of the petittonere. as valid. The Detitioners iis'nc ail o; jrievances submitted a representation on 01/12/2010 (Annexure 'nw. 2. Be that as ii may, the vaiidity and genuineness of cenificate can be considered only by the expert in the field, not by the Court. The petitioners, without awaiting for th®decision of the respondent authorlties on the reDresentstion of she oetitioners. which was fiisd on 01/12/2010 (Annexure P/10) straiahtawav. apDrosched ihis uourt. A seven Judaes Bench of the Suoreme Court in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh', obser/e" that in every such oase onty when the appea! or reprasentation provlded by iaw is disposed of; cause of actlon shall first accrue and where such order is ncrt mads, 'a9S9)4SCC5S2 :H.;: .^:^'^ '"^. i js^fe-, 'a ^ "::^'i"-:-^^-':.i ^ // ^' ••'•'.Q rtfuil -\ on the expiry' of three to six months frorn the date vrhen representation was made, the risht to sue shali first accrue. Ths petitioners have oreferi-ed the instant writ oetition within a Deriod of about 50 davs frorrs the date of makinci the reoresentation. without givina reasonabie time to the authorlties to consider their reDresentation and oass the order- However. havina reaard to the facts sltuation of ihe case, the respondent authoritles are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners, in accordance wjth law on its own merlts and pass the order as eariy as possibie preferably within a peiiod of three weeks from the date of receipt CT a copy of this order. Accordlna'v, the writ oetition stands disoosed af. Sd/- Satish K. AgBihotri Judge i "11