IN THE HI©HCOOBT 0F SmLQ^mS ^ JABALPVR mit P®ITIOImMs-./1998 S Saa-fc. K®Ldeep^KsreirBhffbtat, a|ged_ab@aA. ^ yeaya^ r^®S]ari BIm^tader SiogK, B|/©H©Lifara^ KaTtgra»^ l'|^li."ba'R^a,»,,^ :tipsl»ll^sg V e r s u s RESPOIBgNTS ^- -^ ^ :5 1.S SM^ CIiatFaaQ/Presi.deot, Kaalsa E<tia©a^t©@iSesiei Me^^Bas StQQd M©ad» ;SaaaaFyf-,,!^',-. ; iaiifeiiM^l*-' ! . 9- S 2ot She f3?iBG4pa3./H^a^ Master, Khalsa ^rdiBiai'y Sehool, Oity S-fcatx ©la.Boaa, Xaimu? (M.JP.) • R 5 5< The Beptrt5LJ|ix'ect©r>, |;<teticat^E>i3"|Bi®^aiawada, • ^tlA.^»<JEK<^:ff-^7' 3 ^»iJ©irfc©tr^Gt^E', Piab3.ie ;@duoatio@, &ai^2r^®i^isi.©®,r ..si&^l' l-" ^ 15i.©Qmlaissi©tieri,i • '.;. B^^G Edtl©^i©B. ';."»CT>*_®io©a3.3 :. ' ^ S 68 Sta'fce ®fMa^hya i>rades&, ' jeiKtri«glis^jl!t:s^je.olle'©tl©r.»' ISa^E»tU?'l^%«IP»^»!': -1 PE3vmW lllffii®'.AK£IGLE 22& !^ISt5S& €^MS SS'I^M ^1 EfflQEi y^M i.S»yjL^& iK.J.TS ill T® L&ASt®JE W 1SM^SWSrSMS^^.^3^S3G^ •<:^ : -t 196 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 790 of 1998 Petitioner Smt. Knldeep Kaur Bhattal Versus Respoudeats The Chairman/ President, Khalsa Education Society & ofhers Sisagle Besieh : Honyble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agziihotri, Snit. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Raja Shanaa, Advocate for fhe respondente No. 1 aad 2. Shri Sunil Otwani, Paiiel lawyer for fhe Respondents No. 3 to 6. ORAL ORDER ( 6th March, 2006) The follo\viag order of fhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agsiihotri, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the petition beiag W.P.No. 665/96 in the High Coiirt of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur seekiag qziashing ofthe order dated 12.7.1995 whereby she was dismissed froni service by the Respoiideut No.2. The High Coiirt ofMadhya Pradesh by order dated 16.12»1996 while obsen7iag, as stated by fhe petitioner, tliat fhe statutory appeal was penduig before the Deputy Director^ du-ected the Deprsty Director to decide the peaduig appeal wifhui eight weeks. 2, The Deputy Director pursuant to fhe order dated 16, 12.1996 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, decided the appeal pendiag before it aiid passed fhe orier dated 9.9.1997(Annexure P/11), holding that tiie Depiity Director was not coiapetent officer to hear aixcl decide the appeal. 3. According to leamed couiisel for the petitioner, the conipetent ofiicer is Respondent No.4 i,e. Joint Dircctor to hear and decide fhe appeal wy^MW^- 1J7 ^" Thakur agaiast the orier of termination under fhe provisions of Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan Saiisfha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Kanzichariyon Ke Vetano Ka Saadaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 and The Madhya Pradesli Ashaskiya Shikshaa Saiistha (Adliyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchari) Appeal Rules, 1978, franied fhereunder. The petitioner has filed this petition on 15,2.1998, ever siace the matter has been pendnig in this Coiirt. In view of fhe pendency of the niatter, it is iiecessary fhat fhe Umitation, if aiiy is provided, for fiting aa appeal before the appeUate aufhority, delay so caiised is condoned. Accordiiigly, fhe petitioner is graated two weeks tioie to file a proper appeal before the Respondeut No,4. The Respondeiit No.4 is directed to cousider aiid decide fhe appeal, ia acconlaiice with law witihia a period of six weeks froni the date of receipt of tilie appeal, if so fxled by the petitioner. In view ofthe fox^gouig fhe petition staiids disposed of No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge