m w IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No.to/"-/OF 2010 / Rajendra Kumar Dhore, S/o Shri Nathu Ram Dhore, Aged about' 41 Years, Occupation- Service, Working as Personal Assistant, Office of Advocate General, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, R/o Kila Ward, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS -\^0? VfC% ^^$Y ^y ^t' \"v,^ ..••<^-^> 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law& Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.' Advocate General, State of Chhattisgarh, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through: Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department, Pt. Dindayanl Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ^ ^-£ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR THE LIKE sn^T^; 1^ria?3i1§?T ^ffi^ -Hi^a o -ys, ^.M\v\^, 'S'Sf^S, 1^(RTy 'KIHCT! %H!<* .\b^^l° 'M 3TI^i ^RiTW8f?n ^rafera^ Tqprcff •?fe^ :rf^?re ^7 SlfSW 311^1 (SB: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Moh^n Shrivastava, J.) 15-04-2010 Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, ^dvocate for the petitioner. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Qeputy Advocate Generai for the State/respondents. Heard. This petition has been filed notice dated 06-04-2010 (Annexur^ required the petitioner to show capse as to why his appointment be not cancelled. Leamed counse! for the petitioner submits that in response to said against show cause notice and the Taking into consideration against show cause notice as by the petitioner assailing show cause P-1), by which, respondent No.2 has show cause notice, the petitioner h|as submitted his reply after filing of the instant petitlon. Learned counse! fj?r the petitioner submite that occasion to file this petition arose on accouht of the contents of the notice, which according to him, shows that the| respondenf No.2 has already taken decision in this matter. Leamed Deputy Advocate| submits that no final decislon hasl petitioner. Nofee has bsen issued proposed action, and by that notsci General tor the State/respondents so far been taken in the case of the :o the petitioner to show cause against the authoritv has disclosed the basis for proposed action. !t is also subitiitted that this petition is only directed feame is pre-mature. |iat this pettion has been filed only also taking into consideration the i_. [Tft®^f,'TI x1 ^ •5EPHC—7S ^^ '^Tl^KI^, 0Tll'M'!(o, ?s«Y1iy<^< ..'^?;.?.:IS.:l.Nb..).£s^ 2^10 ^I^aRi sn^nw w ^H^RI^T^W^ 'iRaiw'dfei w^i —"^— +l<<[i'l<il-< '•WRff ^' fSCS ^sifinsii^r Tumane li-i.- _.„._ .... statement made at the bar bythe ie^r the State/respondents that no final de(;i 1 am not inclined to entertain this petiti the respondents to take appropriate due cons'ideratlon offte replv submitt^ !n view of foresoing, the petrtioi^ edmed Deputy Adwcate General for rision in the matter bas been taken, ion at this stage. It wilt be open for ?cision in accordance with iaw, after ^d by the pettioner. Is dismissed. _ - Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava