~% < 100 >^-"":,.!<i:?<"£'&5'"""" C. . ^^^%-^>;""' fif-'" ^-" l^--"" IN THE mCH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.) W.P. No. 3182 /2006 ^-i ;1'[<~: Petitioner: Respondents: fi> \,. t /^•' Avadhram Chandrakar S/o Puriram Chandrakar, aged about 43 years, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School, Eramsahi, Block Masturi, R/o Village Bhilai, Post Gataura, District Bilaspur. Versus ^ 1. StateofC.G. Through : Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Director, Directorate ofPublic Instmctions, Pensionvada, Raipur. / 3. Dy. Director, Public Instruction, Raipur (CG) / 4. District Education Officer, Composite Building, Bilaspur. 5. Ku. Farida Begum, Vyayam Nirdeshak ^ .^*? (Physical Instructor), Govemment Uchchattar Madhyamik Shala, Koni, Bilaspur. 1- •s . s<4 ^WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '^ XI-HC-78 Sn^TcETR-fi'h HSIT3n^Tsb>1 *(t*fCfT St»*1|c»> ~S^ -^ww<f, »iS\w'\e, Rdiyy ,.^.T:^^ ^ ^ Sll^l Wti (yit^si^eT) ??BTWHfeT3T^?T 3-7-2006 Mr. Ratan Pusty, counsel fc| AAr. A.S. Kachhowaha. 6ovt.| 4, on advance copy. Heard both the counsel. Ths main grievance of the Article 226/227 of the Constitul No.5 is junior to him, she has petitioner. TTie case of the petition| Teocher on 26-12-1981 in Primar^ District; Biiaspur vide Annexurefl as Assistant Teacher on 3-10-3 sent for training of C.P. Ed. on 20 successful in the said trainin9. training is Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the p several representations and the by the District Education Officer, but respondent No.2 is not passi respect of the same, the petitl respondent No.3 vide Annexure P- So, learned counsel submitted th representation to respondent N 19*4 +i<if<'i41-< *ii*fCTTffteA<R]<?;i< ^siRriTan^r r the petitioner. Advocate forthe State/respondents No.l to petitioner raised in this writ petition under ion of India is that even though respondent been promoted i9noring the claim of the sr is that he was appointed as Assistant School, Tikari within the Block of Mosturi, -1, whereas, respondent No.5 was appointed k The petitioner & respondent No.5 were July, 1992 vide Annexare P-2 and they were The certificate of successfully possing the |etitioner submits that the petitioner made c^se of the petitioner has been recommended Bilaspur, to r-espondent No.2 for promotion, jng any order. He further submits that in joner has already made representation to |7 doted 2-8-2003, but nothing is being done. (rt the petitioner may be allowed to make a |o.3 and respondent No.3 be directed to XI-HC-78 *11*1MI sb^lcb 3^ ;^NT?PT, ®Tflo'i6,Iqoiuy .'..t*:),.TS,^[S^s. ^200 ^, 3<I^IM^€h(l^c|fja|^!ir) sn^T^iifN^ craT3IT??Ist)>1 Soma <5i ^..^ ^" 'tf ?CTW^(T3TI^?T - ^- consider the same, to which learned| respondents No.l to 4 has no objectj Havin9 heard learned counse facts and circumstances of the c<ri merit of the case, the petitioner respondent No.3 within 15 days froi^i decide the representation in an grievonces r-aised by the petitioner of the representation, in accordanc^ With the direction aforesoid, Parties ar-e entitled for- certit +Wf<-f41.< WRTf ff fecfl- <JSR3R ^3rf^fr3T]^?r |counsel appearin9 on behalf of the State/ |on. for the parties and hoving regard to the |e, without expressing any opinion on the is allowed to make a representation to today, and in turn, respondent No.3 sha!) (abjective manner after considering the ijthin two months from the date of receipt with law. the petition stands disposed of. Fied copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo }udge