SU ?>.'•:. Stn^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.) N0. €3lll /2011 PETITIONER: /' ^^•^..^; ^' W^.7-*°*' ..•^%^ ^u\ \,%. ,e-W Duran Singh Uraon S/o Shri Budlu Ram. Uraon, aged about 42 years, Lecturer (Econoraics) Government Higher Secondary School, Loying, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) /' ^ 2) The Joint Director/Com.m.issioner Lok Shikshan Sanchnalaya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3) District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) / 4) The Principal, Governnient Higher Secondary School, Loying, Tahsil SE District Raigarh (C.G.) 1/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE ftt.fi. JU8TICB PRITINKESR DIWAKER W.P.ISl.NO. 6341 /2011 Duran Siagh Uraon RESPONDENTS versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri D.R.Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridliar, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB^26 OF'rWS, CONS31TUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2011J Coiuisel for fhe petitioner submits fhat he may be permitted to withdraw fh.e present petition witti Uberty to file representation before the respondent No.2. He subiuits that direction may be issued to fhe respondent No.2 to decide the said representation in fhe light of fhe order dated 4.11.2008 passed by tfais Court in W.P.(S) No. 6098/2008. Counsel for fhe State subinits that let fhe petitioner raake a representation before respondent N0.2 aiid the sam.e would be decided after due verification of fhe fact aad after scrutuuzing the entire case, Accordiugly, the petition. is disinissed as wifhdraw wifh fhe Uberty as aforesaid. In the eventuality of inaking any such representation by fhe petitioner before respondent No.2 raisiag aU his grievance, it is expected froin the respondent No.2 to decide the same consideriag all the factual and legal aspect of fhe case as expeditiously as possible. It is,m.ade clear fhat fhis Court has not expressed auy opiiuon on iiierits of fhe case and the aufhorily concemed wouM be at Hberty to decide the reuicsentation of the petitioner stricfly in accordaace wifh law. Pritinker Diwakar Judge