d^2 s' IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF GHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (St No. /2010 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS o--" ^^py '•••' ..^1"' \>-"~ ^ ' Govind Ram Khanna S/o Shri Setram Khanna aged about 55 Years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Kera Block - Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipi.iT, (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. ThePrincipal Govt, Higher Secondary School Kera Block - Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226 OF 'HIE CONSTmTTIONOFINDIA ^> XI-HC—78 *~^ ri\w\vf^, wa\wie, fsidiy^ HI^WI a>*ii<t» antn 'T^? (Ti?f3^*i) ^--^£^l^s^oo 3Tl^t ^l(<-<i«ti^ WT 5FfT^T st)*ll^ ^. .y' TOiiw^totan^t Shri Ashwini Shukla, couu; Sm.t. Snuta Ghai, P.L. for il |el for the petitioner. iUe Stete. Counsel for the petitioner eutitled to benefit of two advaiici haviug passed B.T.I. examination own cost. It is subinitted that. thi petition is no longer res integra decided by fhe Hon'ble Suprem| SaxeaaVs. State ofM.P. & Ors. ^ubinits that fhe petitioner is iB.creiaents on account of he before his appointoient at his ^ issue involved in tbe present faid fhe same bas been finallv k Court iu the case of fe^t d] It is fiirther subiiiitted fea similar view in its oid.er dated 6 6257/2008. Counsel for the peti^ order dated 29.4.2010 passed i] whereia rel^Tng upoa the judgiaej case ofAsha Saxena (supra) and| in anoftier Writ Appeal No. 8' issued for consideration of the iaci^Dients as per circular dated of Madhya Pradesh, aftei petition. verificaltion subiitits Counsel for fhe State would .also be considered OQ the { ^iNwfrt-wwif •? fs^t TfSre^re ^sifinsii^i fbis Court has also taken a j.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) N7o. tioner fiirther submits that the Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, ofthe Suprenie Court in fbe |ftie order passed by this Court '/2009, directions have been ;ase for Rrant of two advan.cc 121.9.1974 issued by fhe State ofthe fact8 pleaded ia the that ca.se of fhe petitioners -ame lines. ..,ySS^Kr- \. •sw/£. '"^.^SsMi-HC—is ^•J:.S' WflRfT 9>WVfl 7S['<liqi<viq, 8)Tll.H'|<o, fsldiy1!,'!. ,l<A.&...L&).ffe^te<^^200 sn^itra^ (ici(^l!i<ici) Sf^V W W\<h wn sn^fi a>*i -< l'>-' E' \ 's^nwafer aii^i aufhoitities In view of above, the pe^ direction to the respondent petitioner for graat of two advanj dated 21.9.1974 issued by fh.e ^ verification offh.e facts pleaded ia| eight weeks froin todav. It is inade clear that this opuiion bn Dierits of fhe case i would be at liberty to decide ttic witll law. 'T>i<ik')*iii ifl^cif ^ ^^ <r;>i^i< ^; 3iRn SD^T ition is disposed of wifh a ities to decide ftie claiin of fhe 'e hicreiaents as per circular bate of Madbya Pradesh after the petitipn wit.h.iil a period of 3ourt has not expressed any md the aufiiority concerofid saine stdctly in accordance Sd/- Pritmker Diwaker Judge 1