1 “L £3§~2m mm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) §H\% W? W.P.S N0........... ......./2011 /‘ PETITIONERS: Lalan Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Bullu Ram Dewangan, Aged about 55 Years, R/oViHage- Post— Misda Q \ Nawagarh Tahsil Nawagarh District- Ianjgir—Champa (C.G.) VERSUS § M” ESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S.Bhawan. Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) 2. District Education Officer District Ianjgir Champa (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'ITI'UTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- R Fx? 1mm Wu \ , m CE P ITINKER DIWA I E 14 09 2011 Shrl Jltendra Pali, Shri Y. S. Thakur, Grievance of the etitioner is that on account of his conviction order da ed 29.06.1994, the petitioner was not permitted join his duty, however, subsequently vide jtdgment and order dated 08.03.2011 passed by his Court, the petitioner has been acquitted and t erefore in aii fairness the respondents shouid havp allowed him to perform his duty. He submitsthat tie petitioner had already made representations vide Annexure P- 4 & 6 but tiii date order has not been passed on his representations. Learned State catnsei very fairly submits that order on representation of the petitioner is to be passed by the competent authority. He however submits that let the petitioner make a fresh detailed representation to respondent No.2 and in turn the same would be decided in accordance with Iaw. unsel for the petitioner. . A.G. for the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed l o y t m mwf’wW‘Y/H E 200 WIW (Wu) mmthw amm m W umm Wumé&%€r {IEWXTI $ affaq m representation before weeks from today giving in the eventuality of fiiing any such representation it is me would be decided by dance with law within a further espondent No.2 within two copy to respondent No.1 and expected that the sa respondent No.2 in accor period of two months. g It is made clear thi any opinion on the merit concerned would be representation of the pi with law after due scrutiriy of the facts. ..yy.y.y.y..yy '.’’...... ML.” at this court has not expressed s of the case and the authority at liberty to decide the etitioner strictly in accordance Prit‘mker Diwaker mi 1mm m tam . wrPAw gun %’/H WW7" §nl$ W 200 Wrm (Wu) mmmia? ammzm muf‘mm Wwma“§fg€:mw $az‘m3n’c1m