HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR p O F PETITIONERS 1. Girdhari La! Khare, aged 34 years, son of Shri Padum Lal Khare, resident 0f village Danitoia, Post Bhains Bod, Tahsi! Balod, District Durg (CG). 2. Nand Kishore Kaul. aged 32 years. son of Shri P.L. Kaul, Savida Prashikchhan Adhikari Verg — 3, I.T.l. Gidam. Tahsil Gidam, District DanteWada, Permanent Address Sargipal, Tahsu Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar, Jagdaipur. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State Government of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary, Technicai Education & Manpower Department. Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. Director, Empioyment & Training. State of ‘ Chhattisgarh, Mahila ' Polyteehnic Campus, Bairan Bazar, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 5m day of March, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made representations before the Director Directorate of Employment & Trai/ing to conSider their cases for appomtment Learned counsel does not Wish to contest the matter on merit and seeks permssron of this Court to withdraw this petition, however, he prays for a direction that the pending representations of the petitioners should be considered and decided in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 2) Shri Thakur, learned _Dy. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State opposes even consideration of the pending representations of the petitioners. lt is beyond my comprehension asto how the State can decline to pass an order in an application/representation made by a citizen of the country/State. This is the right of any person of the countryiState to make an application or representation pointing out grievances. if any, to the State ”72 (20% and the State Autharities Le. the Secretaries, Directors. etc. are under an obiigation in a State, which is a welfare State. to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 3) I am also unable to understand how the Dy. Advecate General can l advance such a submission. which is, prime facie, contrary te the basic spirit of the Welfare State“ The petitioners have every right to make an application and the State Authorities are bound to consider the same, in accordance with law, and pass apprepriate orders. 4) In view of the foregoing, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw this petition, hoWever, the Director, Directorate of Employment & Training, is directed to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and on its own merits. within a reasonable period of time. in the facts situation the case, this order is being passed. 5) With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. 6) ‘Consequently.l;A.No.1 also stands dispVe/x Sél_ ‘ '. r Ag Gowri /h‘ ‘