/man Juieta Tate, c130 33 yearg, accugaatian T Schosl Putkapuri, rio E’u Disttiat Raigarh {ChhattiS Siibanus: Tate, aged e tkapuri, Ta§$il and Versus acher, Gem, High garh} W ESEEND%§: ’ t i. I Searetary State efChhatl‘isgarh, , E through 09$ > apamnent 9f Sashes! Education, \. \;Q\:;, “\g’g ’3 {/é / Directcr, um; Bhawan,Raipur(Chhamagmhy Public fastzuctions , D ..-\i\ g " L J; f 3. Jaint Bhawan Direcior,Pub1ic Raigaur {Chimttisgarh} Irasir '3' , ‘ . Raigarh Diviss ,KS. uctiong , n Raigérh (Chhatm‘$garh) _, : Ku R 5 c}: Q‘X respohdent has not granted an , to the petitionar from the date oi Having considered the fac and mattrial on reconi, in the justics will seIVe if a direction is detailed representation along w competent authorityvmthin %e‘t ‘iepresentation being nled the c the same by ‘passing a reasone ‘ withinitwo months fmm the datt If any adverse order is passed aggrieved, she may me the petition afresh challenging thesaid It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case With the aforesaid obse disposed of. v "Consequently, I.A.No. 391 stand disposed of. Celtifled copy as per/rules. order. ears of pay scale and allowances his initial appointment. ts and cimumstances of the case opinion of this Court, ends of given to the petitioner to make a ‘ith a copy of this order to the :n days from today and on such ompetent authority shall decide d order in accordance with law i of production of representation. and the petitioner thereby feels rvations, this petition stands 3/2003 for urgent hearing also / r/zg" Faknrudd‘“ Judge t t 7/,7,—1 Ci ‘l WWW t XI’HC-22 ”MM We maggg eaten we? Wat wwweam a; 311% Hanan K: 02/05/ 2003 Shri Alok Bakshi, counsel for the petitioner. Shti Ranbir Singh, GA for the State. Heard. i Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that