IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION N0 ^' nL-> /2005 PETITIONER •'..-•^/ Ashish Kumar Vaishnav, aged about 24 years, son of Shri Ram Kishpn ^d'fidS^ <3T&y'^i3WU -1-' ^yL^^^ ^v£ushnay' .V^-'aa^T-fcf-^^,^, ..•l-p-5'P--''^%-'":'^ u'-?'<«^i. TahsU ^ Lormi, DiStt.' •*'' -, s-*'^'^ y^*'" o<' s.^•y y^SSf&®9' ^-ao- RESPONDENTS / 1. Bilaspur (C.G.) •VER^US ^ The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /"•••'• ^''J ,-^ ^ ,< Tkl'" illc l-/llCULUi- T~l/^ ^/^/h»-r r^cycc;v r<^^/-!i-,^ ^jcU.iUlll iy- -/y'\^ \' ^ ^ 3. •,.3 Shiksha Mission, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, through - Its Chief Executive Officer, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ov ^> WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 01. PAKriCULARS_ABOUT THE PETITIONER XI-HC-78 \d-OT|-qi<4tn«,ya1x-l<IS, [qrtK-fy; wnc5T^m^ -....^^-^^s...l^)o an^STv^s (ijcit^ci.g) ^ 3[I^<T<I?lRl-lJ<t» asiraii^nsOTW gWr8R^)feT3II^?T 3-5-2005 Shfi P.P. Sahu, counse?! Shri Bhaskar Pyasi. No.l and 2. for the peTitioiier. Ftansl Lawver for the State/resoondsnts Heard boTh the couns? rte 'embved The petjtioner haa pi 226/227 of the Constitutioil] that vide resoiution dated sstected for* ihs post of 5u"|i Panchavat ciso recommencjed pursuanee of tho.t he was 2000 'HIS petitiori^r was r'enrt^v' is not the resident of villag^ person was sppointsd 0,1 th| iocat Derson is avaiiabie. Ih^i bsen remQVed from ths DoS+J Learned counsei fot petitioner made rsoresenTatf not Gtsvinqenv heed to +he the petitioner' may' be ail< resDondent No.3 and he b^ iearned couns®!:fsrresoondsl <ni<ifci<fli <ii*tnT^'t^'<9 •((ul'dil't ^sri^Tatl^CT iferred this writ oetition under Article ] of India. The case of the oetitioner is '-1-99 (Annexure-P/1) the petitioner was Liji by 6ram Panchsyat Boircha and Jcinpat the Detitioner's uuuointrnent. In '1<ST •s L ^QQ^- , 1999. On 30-i- njpved from the post on the yound thar he Boiraha. However, loter on, some other bt sost mentioning thersin thst sincs ns Irefore. the Detitioner ought not to have the pa+itionsr" submitted that the ons, but tha respondents authorities are r^oresen+a+ion. t-!e furtiier submitted that sd to make a detailed representaTion to directed to decide the same to which R+S No.l aid 2 has no ob isction. sa^a vd-cci '-^i<iirt<4, y-nl'<-i<is, Rrti't+y'; wiBiai^ •-^^•W^-^^200 an^aTipif^riip ?piT3n^sT**<i<b an^STV (4ci(^«i<(i) reoressrtta+ion i.30Mna +o the limiteci ietitioner which ooDears to U to. make a detaiied psriod of 10 days from toda^ the reoresenTation ot the,oe' the date of receiDt of tiie points raised by the petitiori with iaw. With the dir'ection afor Conseouentlv. I.A. No.; <bl«ld<i1-f<414dT^ffe'^l 'tluttci'; ^srf^Tan^^ rswsst made by leQrned counsei fsf ths 4 yn:*-. ^ ie JUST and Tair, rne peTiTioner' is aiiowed befors resoondent No,3 within a ' and in turn respondsnt No.3 wili dscide ritioner wiltiin a oeriod of 2 mon'ttis from ;representation after considerinq ai! the er in an obiective monner' in accofdance. aforlesaid ssaid, the petition stcnds dispossd of. 292/2009 also stands disposed of. ied eopy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo