^e-\ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(SlNo.........BoS\......2011 PETITIONER ^^' ^v^ty-^./ ^fy^ ..•-"''' ^-^^-^- .^^'^-f\/i/)' ^^-•^' Rajendra Kumar Suryavanshi, aged 32 years, S/o Shri Neelkanth Suryavanshi, R/o Near Chumman Park, Ward No. 6, Gandai Pandaria, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) v^^ Versus RESPONDENTS (1) The State Govt.of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Deptt Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Direetor of Public Instructions State of Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, Bairan Bazar, Raipur (C.G.). (3) The President, Nehru Higher SecondarySchool, Bhathagaon (B) DistrictDurg (C.G.) (4) BasantKumar C/o President Nehru Higher SecondarySchool,Bhathagaon (B) District Durg (C.G.) Writ DetitionunderArticle226/227 ofthe Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus of writ/direction or anv' otheraDDroDriatewrit. Petitioner respectfully prays as under:- 1; ParticularsofDetitioner:- As stated above. . ^s[ '<ii<<Kt<4, ®'(il'M'lis,[si<ni'My,< ..^..•f:..@...^..'...3.?.%.!. 23 *iiHcfii tf>tfr«b 'RT, 200 sn^i ^ii tt(-fi+ i?f%FT SH^T s»i*ii<:t> 1 ^ ueepti sn^T 'vsv ('yfj^'i'Ei) TRirer ^ifCT ai^B SB: Hon'ble Shil Manliidia Myi 20-06-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, couns|el for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Ad| and 2 on advance copy. Case ofthe petitioner is tha) placed at the top of the merit list; ct>i'4f<t<l1i 'RTR^ff ^ feTSt ^!<$R ^ajfinsii^ii Eitiv&iit^^ No.3 proposed the name of respij)ndent No.4 for appuntment, which was not approved by the Director, Pubii (Annexurep/1), the office ofth&D Education Officer to send proposa for approvai. it is submitted that till one pretext or the other, the rnalter has remained pending, even though the petitioner has already submitted h|s caste certificate in view ofthe notice dated 31/08/10 (Annexure P/5) issued byjthe Principal ofthe school. Vide memo dated 3/1/2011 directed the District Education Offit^rto make nec^sary proposal. However, it appeara that the matter has not be( Accordingiy; respondent N4 the matter pureuant to memo appropriate ordere in accordance from the date of receipt of copy of t^e order. Wifh the aforesaid observat rocate General for the State/respondent No.1 even though, the petitioner was seiected and instead of proposing his name, respondent ; Instructions. Vide memo dated 3/1/2011 rector, Pubtic Instructions required the District in the matter of appointment of the petitioner date, the matter has notbeen decided and on , the Director, Public Health Instructtons has in finally decided by respondent No.2. .2 is directed to take appropriate decision in jdated 3/1/2011 (Annexure P/1) and pass tvith law, within an outer iimit of three months ons, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd-/ ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge ---^i' Vi [I ".•3