(L6"/o-s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (St N0. ^66 O Qf 2009 ^iN' PETITIONER ?~ • ^ ^ r^^ ^^y^- <^y: '/&^ ^yy ^~^~' -^ ^'^y ^" • ; RESPONDENTS Ku. . Usha Durgam D/p Late Durgam Panndu, ageid about 36 years, occupation Service (L.D.T.) Posted at Balak Ashram Pasewada (Madded),, Tahsil 8s Disfrict Bijapur (C.G.) ; R/o village & Post Darapara, Bijapur, Tahsil ;&,,District Bgapur (C.G.) VERSUS <<.' ^ . . / ~. 1: ! :: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departinent, Mantralaya, 'D.K.g. Bhavan,, Raipur (C.G.).. 2. The Gomrnissioner, Tribal Welfare and Development, Raipur (C. G.). 3: Collector, District Collectorate, Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G,). 4. The Secretaiy, Mata Rukhmaai Sewa , Sansthan Samiti, Dirnrapa.l, Tahsil &DistrictJagdalpur(C^G.) WRIT PBmTION UNDER ARTIGLE 226 OF THE CONSTItUTION OF INDIA. 1950 A. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTfSGARH : BIU>SPUR PETITtONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETtTION (S) N0.5680 OF20(» Ku.Usha Durgam Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ peUtion under Article 226 of ttie Consffiulion of India) Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri Sateh K. ^nihotri, J. Present: - 1. 2. 3. 4. Tumane Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the petifioher. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER fORAU (Passed on this 5th day of Odober, 2009) With the consentof leamecteounselappearli^forttie paiti ,the petition is heard finally. Learned counsel appearing for the petlUsner wbmits that the instant petitfon is squarety covered by the deeision ofthis Ceurt rendered In Smt A. Lall v. State crf ChhatUsgarti & OUie^, thusthepett^ermaybepelTnltted^tomatearepresenMaon-to ctecide her case in the light of afora-stated de^sion, -subjart to verification asto whettier the respondent No.4 tnstitute is a Govemmentaided schoot and the petitioner is a teacher wfthhi flie sanctioned strength. Leamed counselappearing for theStatesubmits thatjntheevent, fhe petitioner makes a representadon, the sama wiU be considered and declded, tn accordance wtth law, withln a period oftour weeks from the date of receipt ofthe repnsentation. In view offoregoing, according to the lea-ned counsel ajspearing for the peUUoner, notfting surwves m ttis peUtjon for adjudieatton. 5. Accordingly.the writpefition is disposedof. Sd/- satisb K.Agninotri Judge 1 -irift— 2007 (1)BLJ 265 ^^^^J4Af &f ^^ S i^" ^^&^^ ^ ^SKt T Kt3^^^iT^