(2^ \^^] w TJB»aojrjfti<B ttfQacavKToy csaATtiseAStS ^WWCATWSS At SILASyVK W^(Sf ffo. 5^5 /S010 PKTSTf0 : ^^-^ ^;^^^ ^••^w ^w"y ^••y^ ^y" ^y1".- <^''/' 'y ;• Ku.Kamla Nag D/o Shri Birbal Nag Aged about 49 years Occupation- Pfwdpal Govemment Ifigher Swomiary Sdwol Pmtcwur DisNcf- Sumjpur (CG^ vsKsiys fussyosmstfTs: ^fS^ tv.c^^ ;^nHivs' ^ ^ J. State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary , Department of School Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan^ RaipurfC.G^ 2. District Kducation Officer Surajpur . €i Dist'<^guJ^fC.G) 3. Muheshwar Singh {Posted as Principal Govt High School t^^v Pratappur Dist ^^^^) @ Working as Principal Gavemment ffigher tT o^?5^^ Dist-^rgig^fC.G) WWT i»»rjrrjowirxDiSiR juiric&a aae/aayor TMM cojwsTjTirrjrow oy WWA ^^•^^ ^".^A'^, H1GH CQURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETmON 18) No. 5275 of2010 Ku. Kamla Nag. RE8PONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WR£LPETITIONUNDER_ART]K;LE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUnONQFJNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aamhotri, J. Present: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shsi Amn Sao., Govcniment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 and 2. Ms. Farah Minliaz, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 26th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place ofposting for more than one year on account ofinterim order granted by this Court on 30.09.2010. The State/respondent No. I and 2 may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Shri Sao further subniits that the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 shall not insist upon compliance ofthe impugned order dated 13.07.2010 (Amiexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner. 2. At this stage, when no effect could be given to the impugped order dated 13.07.2010 (Amiexure P/l) on account ofthe mterim ordcr dated 30.09.2010, thus, it is not necessary to go into legality and validity ofthe aforestated impugned order. 3. In view ofthe above., according to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing sun^ives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge