Sing^ n9ncfl1 "}. m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPL7R W.P.NO. B3 / 2005 Petitioner Respondents Versus :1. :"•?'< ^ :'.-' ^'2. ^^ 3. Parushottam Thawait S/o Shri Chintamaiii TAawait, Aged about 59 years, Working as Asst. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Sector-4, Balco Korba, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) Block Education Oficer, Korba, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) The District Education Officer, Korba, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) WKLT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA ^oli^d:^: (f) ^l^l^T^TO WT^??W^ Y-- ^W€?ll"WWSs ^^ '^TRRI^, ^ft€Tl^,t^n+ty ^....U.£.-...^...A|.aS-^^ (^t^^) ^fffiT ^i^^ 311^? 28/01/2005 Suresh Kuniar Veniia, c< Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. Heard on I.A. No. 220/2^ The iiistaat petition ha^ ground th.at he had challengec] by ffling a Writ Petition No. 3^ fhis Court vide order dated O respondents to decide the petitioner wifhui six weeks. Leained counsel for the the representation vide Annex| decided by the respondents Court. The docunient of representation of tiie petitionj counsel for the petitioner vv'eeks by which the represenl over. Eveu then tliey have notj as such a violation of the respondents should be representation of fhe petitione] I have heard ttie leamedl The order of Annexurel spect&c aad, clear aad tf conipUance of th.e above ordet ^unsel for the petitioner. For flie State. |)05 for urgent hearm.g, It is allowed. been filed by the petitioner on tlie fhe traiisfer order of Annexure P-1 ^55/2004 which was disposed ofby j 1/11/2004 with a dii-ection to the 1 representation subraitted by the CouH; ^?^fe^3iw^ iE fe^t' ^f^K ^atto^^r t^etitioner subiirits ttiat he subm.ittecl jure P-4 but the saiiie has not been [espite categorical direction by fhis A^exure P-5 establishes fh.at fhe ?r is under consideration. Leanied furpier subinits fh.at the period of six |:ation was to be decicled is already |decided the represeiitation and it is ^ou^t's order. However, it is prayed that flLi.rfher directed to decide the which is pending. jcounsel for tihte petitioner. P-2 passed by tliis Court is very tijie petitioner is aggrieved by non r, he is at liberty to inove suitable Gi; PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. .^^^^.^^ ^9 /3?I^T ^T ^W ^^r.^i^r^^N ^ •^••-. y^ •^ ^ l?" -3^ ^pfj^f^^ 'S^^TS^f^ra'^; g^;..,...H...(?:....^...<i».^-^200 ~^^i ^^ (^t^^>) appUcation under the law aiidjsecond petition ofsimilar reliefthat is for direction to the responde|iits to consider fhe representation of tlie petitioner is not mahitain^ble and accordiagly/the petition is dismissed, Consequently, M.W.P. Njo. 83/2005 aiid I.A, No. 220/2005 stand disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^raf^fi^w^ 4'fe^t ^^i'< ^•attH,^?^r Gi: PRJ—FS/350—12/2000-50,000.