Bi'a p'f^l~ PETITIONER ^A^z-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(sl N0. &8 26 QF 2009 RESPONDENTS // )9^fl •r(^^/ y^y ^// L ir / .^)^ --.?1 ^.Smt. Kiildeep Kqyr Bhattal W/o Late Shri Bhupinder Singh Aged about 59 years, R/o Moulipg^g^Rg^igram, Teli BandhaT'33i^trict Raipur •^iuvf""'~t'"' VERSUS 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, RaipUr (CG) Director, Direetorate of Public Instructions, Raipur, Distnct Raipur(C.G.) Disfrict Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G) Chairman/President, Khalsa Education Society, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTieLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (•> mOH COURT OE CHtIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) No. 6826 of2009 PETITIONER : Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Bhattal. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble SliriSatish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Raja Sharma, Advoeate for the respondent No. 4. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 08th day ofMarch, 2011) Pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2006, passed in W.P. No. 790/1998 (Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Bhdttal v. The Chairman/President, Khalsa Edvcation Society & Others), by this Court wherein the petitioner was granted liberty to file anappropriate appeal before the respondent No.4 therein i.e. the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur Division, Raipur. According to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, fhe appeal was filed within time but for want ofproper endorsement, it was taken as ifthesame wastaken after 22 weeks. The District Education Officer, Raipur, communicated the decision passed in the appeal on 16.01.2007 (AnnexureP/5), stating that two weeks time was granted to file appeal, which was filed after 22 weeks. Thus, no decision was taken on merit and the appeal was rejected on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the direction passed by this Court on 06.03.2006 (Aimexure P/4). Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, though it appears that the appeal was not filed within a period of two weeks, however, smce decision was no)t taken on the appeal of the petitioner on merit, the delay is condoned, subject to payment ofa siim ofRs. 2000/- to the High Court Legal Aid Commiittee, as cost. The order dated 16.01.2007 (Annexure P/5) isset aside. The respondent- appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal bf the petitioner onlts own merit andperspective,asexpeditiously as possible, in accordaaee with law. With the aforesaid Observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge U i zs?"