^ IN THE HIGH QgORT OE- JUDtCa.TOKE A'E BIIASBQR (C.G.) ZS'®9. W.P. No. /2003 EETITICa'IEfi. ^y^'\.."^ >^^-"" ..^s^ •.^".^%^"" %^-^" '^ EESPCa.IDElCTS LaxiBfin Prasad Viswakarma id about 43 years Dauram Visuakarma Maintenance Mechanic Adarsh Audyergik Prashikshan Sanstha tlndustrial Traininq Institute) Koni, Bilaspur (C.Q.J VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through. the Principal Secretary Departro.eat Qf TeGiiniGa]. Education and Man Bo-wer Plaaning, B.K.S. Bhavaa Raipur (C.G.) E^° w"^y> •t^O^ ss" ""^CST^s. 'r ;•? i!S^::-C!-ff-»^l. ii 2. The Director, /'EmpiQyiB.ent a,ad. Tcaini.ng / Govt. of Chhattisgarh / Raipuc (C.G.) 3. The Principal, MQd&L I.T.I. KQRi, District-Bilaspur 'C.G Tb.e DiractQE Emplo'!,?ment • and Training M.P. Jabalpur (M.E.) 5. Vishnu Singh Thakur, Training Qfficer, Grade-III—- I .T.T. Koni, District-Bila.spur (C.G,. WRIT PETITION QNDER ARTICLE 226/227 CONSTITOTION QF ii'mia. EOR XSSU^BfcE THE QF APPROPR1&TE WRITS OF CERTIOEEtaRI AMS tfiailDAMUS ETC. WZTH FURTHER DIBECTIONS Tli'I! ; ^;;:—JR'K?)^ ^.^S^iB^^Si^^^^^^-S'f'i^^S ffti»at>Mtti5i:t' 3t^s)..»-fci.<nliBfca(uifg1 ^y '?=['Bip!T?ra, ®Tily'i(o,faciw^ 13- P- ^O \,v^°3. sn^r 'v^; ('^3^?) dll^l W ft-li* WI 3(1^1 aifiii 19.06.2003 Coiirisel petiqoner whertas Shri Saadeep Dubey, Shri Kajesh Pandey, Govt.; The grievance of the given to respondent no.5 been considered ta proper p4 siibuu.Ueil I'cpiescuUltious tu Uij aftcr rcorganisatioii, to fhc Statc iio actioil haa bccn takcn. for ttie petitioner. Advocate for the State. Having cortaidered the faci and inateriol on record, in fhe vfSl sexve if a direction is given fe representation along-with a copjr aufhority within twoweeks fioiu. being filed tTie competRnt ai]tTior| same by passiug a reasoned hearing to the petitioner as alscj with law withia three inonthd ,represenfation, If aay adverse orjler eWri^l^ '^T^f ^ 1^^ ^t^K ifraflwisn^i is that promotion has been the petltloner's case Ta.as not rspectlve. Tlie petttioner has State oF Madliya Pi'a.dcsli aud of thc Chliattisgarh as wcU., but s aad circumstances of the case op^nlon offhis Court, ends ofjustice the petitioner to inake a detailed of this order to fhe coinpetent ^soday aud on such representation rfty sTiall consider and decide thc ot-der after giviug opportimity of respondent no.5 in accordance froni tlie date of receipt of is passed, the aggrieved party Gi.PRJ—i V5;200( —50.000. J <^ XI-HG—I '?sf ^npn^pT, ^tilyiti, ftcti'M'j.i tJ-l9-SOO. \S-ao> ati^?lTT^i' (xpfrpst!) sii^i'winw '?^H ^i^T stiHW < ttlS'.'i may re-agitate fhe matter m accor4ance with law. It is made clear that fhis Court has notexpressed iaay opinion on the merits of fhe case. Witb fhe dtFectlon/observ^.tions aforesald, tfais petltion stands aisposed pf. In vlew of ftus order, M.W. also staud disposctl of. C.C. as pcr rulcs. '<6NwitTiinai 4 fe^t Tte(TC ^aifinsii^i •.1364/03 and I.A.No.4112/03 Sd/- Eak'nruddin Judge 11 •'aili-i:-Ki!: •', i^.'^