IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ‘ 26 Of 2008 PETITIONER : -/Kamal ingh Meshram, S/o Late WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shri Aalen Singh Meshram, aged a‘ Q4 about 55 years, occupation — 99W service— driver, posted at office \X (179’ \Jg \‘n. x %."."_J...z.m gv" WY of the Principal , Bhopal Rao Government Polytehnic Rudri, Dhamtari, resident of I/ 10 i Polytechnic Premises, Rudri, District Dhamtari (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS : The State 01 Chha‘ttisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Man Power Planning and Technical Education z Mantralay - D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) ‘i \Q? 2 The Director, Directorate of 6" $$ Technical Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). The Principal, Government Polytechnic Rudri, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). M HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH V: BILASPUR Wm‘t Petin'on (S! No. 4225 of 2008 Petitioner Kamal Singh Mcshmm Respondsnts The State of Chhattisgarh 85 othars WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri q.) Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. Shu’ Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Versus M o R n E mom) (Passed on this 9‘11 day of March, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, sulamits that the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this wn't petition with liberty to me a representation to the concerned authority to consider his case in the light of the order dated 26.11.1994, passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore, in O.A.No.1979/ 1991 (Satish Kumar Mandloi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 8n another). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has no objection to the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the pedu‘oner. .3. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above-stated liberty. If the representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority, in accordance with law, on its OWn merits, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submission of the representation. No cider asto costs. F4.1 Sdl— satish K. Agnihotri Jiidge V a. ‘i