S5si§fi'S S S'aKI!'i<""'i.-.i SJKy'LE. Ct.Kli't? ^ l^-s^. IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATn:SG4RH_AT BILASPUR IC.G.1 W.P. (S) N0. GO°\ ^/2010 PETETEONER ^ ^1-££ ^^IJ^ hi3her \f i-". o S."" Smt. Hitkanni Singh, aged about ^t2,years, W/o Anil Kumar Singh, Lecturer, Government Aadarsh Secondary School, "!!fi- ^)-- \".-- Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.6.) RESPONDENTS : VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgar'h Through Secretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. Block Education Officer Baikunthpur, District- Koria (.C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Kon'a Distt. Koria (C.6.) WRIT PET1T[QN^/A^226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTEON OF INDIA 'Q'lG^J'U^J-A-fc F/< >n /< "—10 /-Ktnn /»/^—^ ia—* XI-HC— 'S'sf •*ii<i|icit|, ®til<H<i(»,fsidiyy j..P:....^..:?....A.-..<ao.AL(o sii^i ''ra^? (l°if:i'^'Ei) SD^T ^T ft-fi'* TT«ff37T^?T sti*li<ff 31.10.3010 Shri D.N.Pi^japati, couiisel SIiriVivek Shanua, P.L. for Counsel for fhe petitioner entitted to benefit of two advance having passed B.Ed. exsinination own cost. It is subinitted fhat the! petitioii is no longer res integra ^ decided by fhe Hon'ble Suprem.^ Saxena Vs. State ofM.P. SB Ors. for the petitioner. the State, |ubinits that fhe petitioner is biGreraents on account of she (icfore her appoiiitinent at her issue involved ia fhe piesenf |ad the same has been finatly Court ia the case of Asha i009 (IIISMPJR (SCl 59. It is furfher subniitted thaD similar view in its order dated 6. j 6257/2008. Counsel for the petit^c order dated 29.4.2010 passed in| whereia relying upon fhe judginer|t ease ofAsha Saxena (supra) and ia atiother Writ Appeal No. 871 issued for consideration of the cjase iticreinents as per circular dated of Madhya Pradesh, after verificat|ion petition. Counsel for the State subinl woiild also be considered on fbie sl coi<<i<i41Ti tTTO^Tf "4 f^sir '<Fii-(^.i< ^T3lRR 311^1 fhis Court has also taken a ^.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. bner rurther subinits tbat fhe Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, ofthe Supreine Court in the he ord.er passed by this Court 2009, directions have been for grant of two advance ! 1.9.1974 issued bv fhe State of fhe facts pleaded in the ts fhat case of the petitioners une lines. o. XI-HC—78 ^sr "41-41di, yfll+i'ico, fqciiy^ STI^T'^?)' (yiii'^'^) sn^i ^CT f<-<1+ (T8H 3Tl^?TsmNr wnw^rfsd 3ii^i Stilite In view of above, fhe peti^ jlirection to fbe respondent authori^ jaetitioner for graitt of two advanc^ (lated 21.9.1974 issued by fhe ^erification of fhe facts pleaded ia tj iight weeks frora today. It is niade clear that this Ct {ipinion on merits of fhe case an{ ^/•ould be at Uberty to decide the tvifh law. l:ftHE<?1*llT1 til^fff ^f f^lzt ^T^K. ^ 3TRR 3TT^?T |ion is disposed of with a ies to decide thc claim ofthe iucreinents as per circiilar of Madhya Pradesh after le petition wifhin a period of aurt has not expressed any i the authoritv concemed saiae stricfiy ia accordance Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge