b THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. $ Of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS o Ku. Sova Swini Metya, D/o. of Shri R.N.Metya, aged about 32 years, R/o. M.I.G. 1/916; Amdi Nagar, HUDCO, BhUai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus / :1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaiy, Panchayat Rural & Social Welfare Departanent, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), / :2) Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE \vvy^ ^y CONSTITUTION OF INDIA y<, y^- ^ HISHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 3ELASPUR SB : HON'BLS MR. JUSTXCE PRITINKER DIWAKBR Versus Ku. Sova Swiai Metva State of Ch.hattisgarh & Others Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for t&e petitioner. Shri Praveea Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. Grievaace of tlie petitioner ia fhe present petition is that she beiag a lady ought to have been posted soinewhere near District Durg. Counsel for flie petitioner subiaits that the peti.tiou.er has already inade a representatiou (Annexure P/5) dated 30.11.11 and the purpose of flling fhis petition would be served if direction is issued to fhe respondent N0.2 to decide her pending representation. State counsel poiiits out that fhe petitioner has inade representation on 31.11.11 and without waitnig for sufficient period she has rusbed to this Court and thereforc she is not entitled for anv such relief. Be fhat as it niay, if fhe petitioner has uiade a representation, it is expected from. the coiapetent authori.tv to decide the sanie in accoidaace witii law. It is inade clear that fh-is court has not expressed any opinion on -the inerits of the case aad fhe authority concemed woiild be at Uberhr to decide the representation strictly in. accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker -.Judge