-^ s-\ 60; pAGE No-^a IGHCOURTOFJUDI WRIT PBTITI01T ITO. : f^8 ^-/200S PBTITIOIIB^ ^^'\ \^.^ ^^...•>^' Btenttat Kiunar Slirivaittaiwi S/ oShd.Bh^s^watPrasadShrivastava, Aged About 47 Yeara, By Occupation, U.D.C. Govt. Arta and Commerce coUege, Baloda Bassar^ IMatt. Raipur. {C.G.} e VBK8U8 1. Stato Of CIihiitttefftfh, fhrougb fhe Secretary, Department of Higher Education»D.K.8.Bhawan, Raipur.<C.G.} 3. Conmiwioner Higher BSducatton Qovt. Cotlege pfScience Raipur C. G. 3. Btate OfMindhya Pradeah, Throu^i, The Secretary, Department ofH^jher Education, VaUabh Bhawan, Bhopal.{ M.P.} 4. V.K. Pandey.S/o Shri, Pandey Accoiiatant, Oovt- CoUege Kohha, Diatnct Raipur.{C.O.} WRIT ^;Tf»<f»C UINAMCK AnTICUB 22& /22T OT THK COBI8WTDTIOH OF WSXCTSOU (81. OR ORDBR ®1. XI-HC-22 3T^?T^T f^Tt^3TT^T ^iW^cT Sarma /^ y: '< 3^T ^I^IKn^, ^^^(0, f^Cll<H^< 3TI^T tj5f<^ ^THc-IT^RT^ -J^:.(?:.^p.-..)fo&.SLJ ra?" 200^— ^n^T^cTTW^T 22.06. Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learne^ Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Chhattisgarh / respondents 1 & 2. Learned counsel for the chalienged the order dated 05| promotion to the post of Accourttant. further submits that the petition|er Administrative Tribunat challe|iging 03.06.1991, the same was reg| submitted that the notices were been fi!ed by the respondents| Tribunai, the matter stands transf^r in view of flling of an ap|3lication orderdated 05.01.1991 pending from M.P. State Administrative origina! application. No writ petili' action, which is also pending been transferred to this Court. in view of t hls, this writ pef <=bl^f^41-l *41^<rtT^tel:S<t<t^^<il< ^3Tf^R'3TT^T counsel for the petltioner. pearned Panel Lawyer for the State of )etitioner submits that the petitioner has [01.1991 whereby he has been denied Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application before State this very impugned order on Istered as O.A.No.1284 of 1991. It is Issued In the appiication, return has also On abolition of State Administration scred to this Court. challenging the same impugned ;onsideration before this Court on transfer 'ribunal, this petition is duplication of the ion is maintainabie for the same cause of c4nsideration in other petftioner, which has [ition stands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (^y^) ^