c^ -^f. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA@I AT BILASPUR W . P. (S) N0._/ 2007 Petitioner ,cf!c~ v^^^' A<i>- ^'.-fe' ^^ -3 ^•:"'^" .••" ^•^^»^"- T> Jai Jai Ram Deshmukh ^"' S/o^- Lakhanlal Deshmukh, Aged about 43 years, Assistant ^^ Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kohaka, Bhilai, Durg, Dist : Durg-(C.G.) ^ Versus Respondents ^ 0°^ ^\ '.^ \^.^' ^' :i)^/ State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) ii) Directorate of Public Instruction, Raipur-(C.G.) ip) Disti-ict Education Officer, Durg-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA ^^v^ ^ ^^ aaina^^^Bnaiu^lllllMiilil l I'lflffN *tMlflitHHPU» J&^^ ^^Eyftto^S^^^arWKK^MI^W iiTiiiTnwiTi^iriirn'miifTimirtiintniriminiBnirinirffifffiri H!GH CQURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WP.fS^No. 1282 of 2007 PetrSioner Jai Ja! Ram Deshmukh Versus Rsspondente SteteofChhatt'sgarti&others SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri S. K. Thomas, Advocate rorthe pemioner. Shri Safeh Gupte, Depufry GovS. Advocate forthe respondents. ^ -ER ^- Thakur (Passed on this 2nd day of March, 2007} The foitowmg order of the Ceurt is passsd by Safish K. Agnihotrl, J. Learned counsel appearing for itse petitioner submits that the question of Saw jnvolved in friis petition ss geverned by fte circuSar dated 20.1.1987. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Sndore Bench, in the of Sndraveer Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P, and others { 2004 (2) M.P.H.T. 3 (NOC) },has considered the issue and djsposed fwf +^*i"k f* vi iiic said matter in the foilowing terms :• "2..........!n visw of ths's submission advanced by Counsel for parties, this petition is disposed of by giving foltov.Tng directions. The respondent No.1 shail consider petittoner's represenSations referred to above and dispose of the same at an eariy date, preferably withiri a period of 3 months from the date of communJcatioR of ftis order jn accordance with law, I'vsdytin/*' in yift»nt^( frl"k/» /»<»•/»*il-'sy^*.!;**** ijis^ |i^*? C(-.n+.,^ ^^»*rf ^i^ ^^l/^^s 4A»^^. n^nspHiy iii HliiiU fcliS S/ii^rUIciiS? jSSu^y t/y ^ini.S? ^3UVfc. a^ ai^»yifW !ti->s/»<'!,fts^('»^fKf^tV*. t^\/ t'kA Ti'^(^i.* »^>l i«^ /^*»snil.^»*»*i*<^+#lArif»*' Fii uy Ifi^ i H^uiii^i tii S?iiiiiit^l iiieilfcd^. counsel appearing for the partiss would jointly su-bmit and admit that this case, being simiSar in naturs, i's squareiy coversd by tte ^^jfc<Ot/kP^ fv"i ^lr^ f'-Q^f*: ^\f tf*e^frf*tf^^'&^' ffS»^*^iK ^f^svf^r /<&sfnt"^\ ^l^^riSivii liS Uis?^di?^ Vi iiiuS«¥'ecf^iiiyss ^yiij<3? ^ypiRj. 1*^ S^^tA* .''*? •N^^ •^ft'^fd^'i'-^t^^ FS,^s-»^tS^ss ^^ii** nA+W/i^ ?^* .^i.fen.ifU^^^^'i! .A<; U v^wv vt ure OiVissicii^u i'.sa&^ii^t ^HS.> p%iiliyu i'o UiO^VSs;U vi Wilfi iiberty to Uie petitioner to make a representafion aSong witt*. a copy of the order passed in ihe case of Indraveer Singh Tomar (supra), vrfiich may fc-e considered and decided, in sccordance v/itti law. wjftin a period of six wseks from the date of recelpt of the representation. No ordsr as to costs. 2. Lea Sd/- SaushK.Agnihom Judge Bi'^'—:.——— !§SL ^ ^