c^(^ tlMIII F SEMRIi ?0? §1^1 i^ l^^, ^-^ tir^ S ^ '^; 3 ^ ?-„ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C3^-L WRITPETmONrS)No. /2010 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^\ ^^ ^:^^' ^%y ^'•^. yb^ ^' . " Smt.Manju Malina Nath W/6. (^IoA-< IA) u<' Shri. B.Nath; aged about 56 years, Working as Assistant Teacher E.B.A. Mission Primary School, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (CG') ,< 1. State OfChhattisgarh, Through \ Principal Secretary, Department Of Scool Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, District-Raipur (CG) ^ 2. Director, Director ofPublic Instruction, Pensan Bada, ,. District-Raipur (CG) 3. District Education Qfficer Jagdalpur District-Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTTTUTTON OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DEEMED FIT- •^g^ XI-HC—78 ^IHCTI W»*l!Ch ^^f ^ww^, w^\w,s, f®ldl-U^< f:.£s:..®....ffiC?.:.....c%uJ^ .2 t1 200 ^fT^?T'<T5R5> (^qt^q^T) ^n^r'^tf^w WT^T^T^RW ^TOT^fiW3?T^T BB : HOH^BLE MR. JUSTICE PRIJTIHKER DIWAKER 29.10.2010 Shri'.Aza.d Siddiqui, counse Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. for the Grievan.ee of tlie petitioner tliough she is entitled for two ad^ has not been passed 011 to her lc nuiuber of identical isiatters ha^ where the petitioners bave representation, copy of one sud petitioner as Anuexure P/5. fbr the petltioner. t3lB.tc < .F.U the present. petitio.n i.s that. ^auce •m.crem.ents but tl'i.e saiae iio reasous. He subiiiits that been decided by fh.is Court [been peniiitted to tlle a order has been. filed bv llie YasUwant Counsel for the petitioner the Sxiprenie Court in the case M.P. & Others, 2009 (II!) MPJRj th.is Court io. the case of MiisiieipaE Corp^ratioii^ Diirg fi^ 96 and ia the case. of ®a£t£| Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.^ of two advaace mcrements has lfr< B.Ed. degree wa.s obtaiaed, is al.^ petitioDer, as the circulars sous|J who had obtained B.Ed/BTI fiulher submits fhat he may V^i petj.tion wi.th liberty to •meJ^t:1 respoudent No.3 for deciding the| ^Hid^l'1 '^F3Fif ^* fex^ <F^^i< '^'3ifinT3^T jsubmits fhat fhe jiidgBient of lof AsSia Saxeiaa VSo state of |SC) S9 aiid orders passed by Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. AaotSier,, 2006 (2| MPJR-CJ Kasit Siagli Vs. State of No.6257^08, whereia benefit 'een granted on fhe basis th.at .o applicable to the ca.se of tlie to extend . besiefit to those ig, ILke tlie petitioner. He |e peiToitted to withdraw this representa.ti.on before- th.e sam.e in a.ccordaiice wifh law. sou^M Trb.iuiriR, ^ Xi-HC—78 ^ WRCfIT ^»^TC}» T^T ^l^l^t^, yTl1-(-il!<o, Is<dl-(-IIIJ,< ^...U'.^..^...€^.:1.^.^^00 3TT^TXPR7 (^f^^T) 3TT^T ^TT'f^ThR' WT W^T $n*iw yRTTW^^^iT^ On the other haad, counsel has no objection tf the petitiouer the sajne is decided io. accordaiice petltio|ier In view of above, the this petition wifb, libeity to fil? respondent N0.3 and ia tum, t±ie to decide the representation so file< ohj^f<n41l 'RFT^f ^ 1^1^' ipai^K ^stRm^iT^r for the State submits that he raakes a representation aiid ^vith law. is permitted t.o wi.th.draw s representation befbre tlie Irespondent N0.3 is expected I, iii accordauce with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge