a H€GH SQURTCE $%>¥%‘£ATTISGARH AT$ILA$PUR W.P.(C) N0. 848 of 2008 Petitioner Tribhuvan Singh. S/o. Laiata Yadav, Aged about 27 years R/o. Vinage Ramgarhwan. Post Office Kheialpur, District Varanasi (UP) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, School Education. D.K.S. Bhawan. District Raipur (CG) 2. Director. State Council for Education. Research & Training. Shankar- Nagar. Raipur (CG) 3. Pt. Ravishankat Shukia University. Raipur. Through: its Registrar. Pt. Ravishankar Shukia University. Raipur District Raipur (CG) 4. National Council f0! Teacher Education ~ A statutory body Government of India. Westem Region Committee. Through : its Regional Director. Manas Bhawan. Shyamla Hils. Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 5. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. Through : its Chairman. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. 6/168. Taigore Nagar. Raipur District Raipur (CG) T THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA Single Bench : Hon‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri Manet Paranipe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11‘" day of February, 2008) 1. The petitioner. who is a student, belonging to other backward ciass (CBC) has tiled this petition impugning the letter dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure P/11). whereby the Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University has asked the Director. $tate Education aw I ‘ I/WWr, r 2 Reseat'ch and Training Councii. Raépur, asto an what basis the students, csm§ng from the other States, belonging to S.C.fS.T.lO.B.C., having iess then 50% marks in graduation, are being given benefit of reseivatian and admi3sion in B.Ed. Counseling and the letter dated 22.10.2007 (Annexufe P/12), whereby the Director, State Education Research and Training Councii. Raipur has written to the Principal. Bhiiai Maitri Coiiege. Risali, to submit the details and the provisions under which the teIaXation to the extent of 5% marks was granted to the students of other States, belonging to S‘C.IS.T.IO.B.C. category. Aforesaid letters are not addressed to the petitioner. How the petitioner has come to know about this communication is not known. The letters mereiy asked for the information by the University from the Director and by the Director from the Principal of the College. The College should have supplied the information to the State Government and the University. it is strange that even the college has not been impleaded as party/respondent. lt is not clear asto how the petitioner is aggrieved by the said letters, where the simple information has been asked for by the State Government and the University. The ooiiege ought to have repiied to the authorities under what provision the reiaxation in minimum qualifying marks is given to a candidate. Thus, this petition is premature, Even otherwise, it is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, who is a student of the college, without impleading college as a party. ln View of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merit and is "\ dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri; Judge ,7i l