- ^^.^? ^^^•-""" ^*' ^yy: %"-:':"" © <?<= ^r^f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.)NO. u<Q /2010 PETITIONER: ^mt. Usha Kiran Yadav W/o Shri Dhansai Yadav, Aged about 45 years, Occupation Head Master presently working in Government Primary School DIET, Janjgir Block Navagarh R/o C/o B.L. Yadav Kera Road, Janjgir District Janjgir -Champa (G.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. / Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. F /"ft^ ji %^^a^ i "i ::1^;F?--1:| | '"-c^. k»S^ 3?T^T ^ f^ll^ ^H 3?T^?T 5FRN? ^nwiTd^ii^ '3~^[ T^ll^l<n4, ^Tl1<4^<o, [®lcy1l^i^< ^^.(£IN,A^.,O..^^ ^T^fT TRW (yif^<^f) ^nw^T^r^^i ^l^ta^T 'HTR^ff ^ fe^ 'rf^'^K ^3?tRRa?nt^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Mansndra Moh^ 16-08-2010 Shri Ashwani Shukla, couns^t Shnvastaya,J, Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Pan' copy. forthe petitioner. 3l Lawyer for the State on advance Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petjtioner submits that the petitioner has submitted representations highligh1|ng several irregularities in the matter of promotion of Head Master, Prim^ Teacher (Science) to the post| representation dated 01-07-2010 (^* P-5) and 26-07-2010 (Annexure P-f been considered. Learned coun^ respondents may be direoted to oor^ider petitioner's representation. In view of the representatio which preferenoe has been grantec^ post of Upper Division Teacher and raised. !n view of the prayer made| and taking into consideration the| iry Schooi/Assistant Teacher/Assistant of Upper Division Teacher vfcle ^nnexure P-4), 19-07-2010 (Annexure ?), but those representations have not ^et for the petitioner prayed that ^s made by the petitioner, it is found that petitioner has highlighted cerj:ain grievances regarding manner in as atso against inclusion of Assistant Teachers, who were not possess^d of etigibility for appointment to the some other objections have atso been by learned counsel for the petitioner nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, it would be proper to disp^se off the petition with directions. Accordingly, the responden|t No.2 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitiorier as cont^ined in representations dated 01-07- '^[R —-FS/847—2/2010 —1,00,000. 1-- '^,.:Xl-HC—78 3?y^[ "^T'f^tw ^^T^n^T^qi^ ••^:' Tumane 's^ •^i^i<n<4, yai'H'Ko, [sicnt-Hy. ^(^^^^^ i<TWll ^i^trcfi "^200 3:?I^T TT^F (T^3^?) ^cHW^fN^TT^T <.—2-^ 2010 (Annexure P-4), 19-07-201 (Annexure P-6) and decide the sarr^ Needless to emphasize, in remain unredressed, he would b^ remedy as may be available to him | With the aforesaid direction, "SFRfeT^T 'HIH^f ^' f^t' <f^1^ 1 < ^7 sfRw a?n^r O (Annexure P-5) and 26-07-2010 e in accordance with law. case, grievance of the petitioner still at liberty to take recourse to such under the law. the petition is finalty disposed ot\ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 14.-