r ^•f'"r~~\, (t i€"' ^. f ':.:""8S?^i, S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.j^No, 2170 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents Siat. Sunita Nag, aged about 25 years, D/o Ramnafh Ns^, R/o Bazar Para, Daatewada, District Dantewada (CG) State of Chliattisgarh, Through Secretaxy, Tribal V/elfare Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) CoUector, Dautewada, Distt Dakshia Bastar, Dantewada (CG) Director, Paachayat aad Gramia. Vikas Vibhag, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distnct Raipur (CG) Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Panchayat, Bhairam.garh, Distiict Dautewada (CG) Block Education Of&cer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhairanigarh, District Dautewada (CG) Chief Executive OfScer, Zila Pauchayat, Dantewada, District Dantewada (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.i Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shri Vila-aia Dixit, Advocate on fhe authority of Shri Manoj Paraaipe, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Depuly Advocate General with Shri Shashaak Thakur, Paael Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to3 & 5. Despite service of notice none appears tbr the respondents No. 4 and 6. 2. (Passed on fhis 8th Day ofApril, 2009) TIiis petition chatlenges the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P/8), passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the Oflicer Inchar^e of Block Dharma has been directed that the order dated 20.10.2005 (Aanexure P/5), passed by fhe Jaupad Paachayat, Bhairamgarh, appointmg Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III, be not given efiect to wifhout permission of ttie District CoUector, Dautewada. Learaed counsel appeariag for the petitioner subinits fhat fhe petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, vide order dated 20.10.2005 (Aniiexure P/5), passed by fhe respondent No.6. He furttier subuuts that the case of fhe 3. 4. 5. 9 Thdmr petitioner is squarely covered by ttie onier dated 25th March, 2006, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No, 1224 of 2006 (Shyaniacharaa Rai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others). He subinits that the similar order inay be passed in fhis petition, Mr. . Thakur, learaed Depuly Advocate General does not controvert the subinission aud subinits fhat the same order m.ay be passed. Haviug heard leamed counsel appearuig for fhe parties, iu fhe facts and circumistances offhe case the respondents are directed to consider aud decide fhe icpresentation (Annexure P/10), ia accordaace wifh. law, withia a period of tlrree weeks, froin fhe date ofreceipt/production ofa copy offhis order. IEI view of fhe foregoiag, ttus petition stauds disposed of No order astocosts. _.____—-— Sd/- I SatishK.Agnihotri Judge