mmfaw‘ra: mmm WWW WWé’WW 00: 7-10-201 ShnSS Ramut oounseHorth petiuoner Shn Valbhav Goverdhan P Lf r the State/respondents Gnevame of the petmoner tst at he has not been gwen ms due semonty to the post of Assustant Director for ch he has already made represemations (Annexures P-9 and P-10). Counsei for the petitioner sub Its that his case ls aquarely oovered wxth the dems‘on of the Apex Court 1n t e matter of M P Chandona v State of Madhya Pradesh and others report m A i R 1996 SC 2397 He submits that ends of justice would be sewed if t e petmoner Is permntted to mthdraw the present writ petition with Iiberty to make a fresh representation before the competent authority and in turn the d authortty may be direoted to decide the same in the light of the judgment of th Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the Stat submits that tet the petitioner make a representation before the competent uthority and the same wouid bedecided in accordance with iaw. Accordrngiy, the writ petition is dismissed as Withdrawn wrth the tuberty as aforesaid. In the eventuality of flung fresh representation by the petrtroner before; the authority concerned within a month from the date of the receipt of theoopy of , this order, it is expected from the competent authority to decide the same in? accordance wrth law and In the light o the judgment of the Supreme Court it Is made clear that this Court as not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authonty conce ed would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petrtioner strictly n accordance with law L v » ' Ales-s \ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker , t Judge i e i