^ A°^...^^^ ^^-^$^' ^-^^^"" Lt A&'-'(;^ /'S 9 • ••.'yf-'' ...°?•„• ^' IN.THE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARIIAT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. (CS6' /2009. Petitioner: ^ Dinesh Kumar Somawar, S/o late Shri Rambhau Somawar, aged about 45 years, Lab. Attendant, Govt. Girls Bilasa P. G. College, Bilaspur (GG). Versus ResEpndents: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Higher Education Deptt., D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. Commissioner, Higher Education, Directorate of Higher Education, Govemment Science College Campus, Raipur (CG). 3. Dy. DirectorHigher Education, DirectQrate of Higher Education, Government Science College Campus, Raipur (CG). 4. Government Bilasa Girls P. G. College, Bilaspur (CG), through its Principal. 5. Ku. Mithila Kirketta, Lab. Technician, Govt. Girls College, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG). -6. Mahtu Ram Kadyam, Lab. Technician, Govt. College, Bhanpuri, DistrictBastar(CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 636 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Dinesh Kumar Somawar State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Pallav Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy Dy. AG for the respondents 1 to 4/State. Shri R.S. Patel counsel for respondent No.6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (18.10.2010) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though he belongs to scheduled tribe category, in the gradation list issued on 20.2.2008 he has been shown as scheduled caste and thereby he has been denied promotion to the post of Lab Technician from that Lab Attendant. According to the case of the petitioner, on account of incorrect gradation list, two persons junior to him namely Ku. Mithila Kirketta and Mahtu pim Kadyam (respondents 5 and 6 respectively herein) belonging to scheduled tribe category have been promoted. In the return filed by the respondents 1 to 4 it has been stated that name of the petitioner has wrongly been shown as scheduled caste and the said mistake has been rectified on 5.4.2010 (Annexure R-1). 2. Though nothing has been stated in the return of respondents 1 to 4 about considering the case of the petitioner for promotion treating him as scheduled tribe, Shri Moorthy submits that if the petitioner makes a representation for promotion, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. On this, counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3. He however prays for a/ —2.— direction to respondent No.3 for deciding the said representation within certain time-frame. 3. In view of above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. If the petitioner makes a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the same is expected to be decided by respondent No. 3 within a further period of two months from the date of its receipt keeping in view the fact that earlier on account of the mistake of the department the petitioner could not be promoted. - ~ - Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge i^j^