E‘NTHE HEGH PETXTIONER: The Submit as under : COURT OF JUDECATURE‘ OF CHHATTKSGARE—l AT BILASFUR WHs‘g N0. é Q3 £2009 / Yuéhishthir Das Sit; Jageshwm’ Das, Aged about 55 years, Upper Teacher Gaviexmxie’nt Midd1e Schoo}, Lukapara, Bhck Bammkela, QC.G.} Division District Raigarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh: Thmugh The Secretary; $611061 Edueation Bhawan, Départment, D.K.S. /. Raipur K16.) 2. The Distxict Education Officer, Dismct Raigarh may 3. The Biock Ediication Officer, Block Barmkela District Raigarki {c.G.) DER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CE OF WRIT iN WRIT L?ETiTiJON UN CONSTETUTIGN OF INDIA FOR XSSUAN ANY OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR, 'N‘ NATURE OTHER WRIT OF LIKE RATURE ETC. petiticner must humbiy and respectfuiiy begs ti) ?ART1CULARS OF THE L?ETlTlONER:~. As staimi 1n cause titia almve, ESPONDENTS bf— HIGH $OURT OF CHHATTI$GARH : BILA$PUR WRIT PETmON (Si N031§9 OF 201% PETiTiG§§§R Yudhishthir Da$ Versus RESPO§§DENTS Staie of Chha’ctisgarh and cthers {Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of 3nd§a) Singie Bench : Hon’bie $hri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ?resent :- 8m 3 R. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. . Shri P. K. Bhadun, Pane! Lawyer for me Statelrespondenis. owe. oRDER (Passed on this 2e“ day of octeber, 2on9; With the oonsem of 1earned counsei appeanng for the parties, the petition is heard finaiiy. 2) Learn-ed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits i‘na’i the peiitioner ooes 'no’t want to press this petition on merits, at this stage. However, iearned couneei submite that the case is squareiy covered-by order dated 24—8-1 9Q2 paseed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative 'i'ribunai. Ja‘oaipur in 0A. No. 2745/1939 {Niacihukant YadLi and 5G Qthers Vs. $tate of MP. and Qthers). The said order passeo by the Tribunal has been taken to the $upreme Court and the Supreme Court was pieaseci to confirm the order passed by the Tribunal by order dated 3-i—1Q94 in S.L.P. (C) No.$892i93. Shri Patei submits that the petitioher has made representation dated i8—10-2008(AnnexurewP/2) before the tespondent authorities, but the same has not been considered and decided 3) Shri Bhaduti, teamed Panei Lawyer tor the State submits that the pending representation of the petitioner shah ioe considered and decided by the concerned authority, in accordance with iaw, on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4) in View of foregoing, according to learned oounsei tor the petitioner Ew§x i 1 tiii date. nothing survives in the matter. Accordingiy, the petition stands disposed of. jf‘f’f/ Sdl- . \ Satish K. Agnihotri > Judge Amit Wh\‘e\&oi