B, ^-%^^' ^^^y^- ?<es°" ...••••• i*^ PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. (S) No. & 69 / 12009 SIN6<-E) t • Jeevan Lal Naik, aged aboji-it 45 years, son of late Shri Rapi Lal Naik, Physical Training Instruction, Govemment Higher Secondary School, Kondatarai, Block Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.) • f RESPONDENTS :1L State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of School Education, DKS Bhavan, Manfa-alaya, Raipurf(C.G.) :2) Conuru.ssioner, Directbrate ofPublic Insb-uction, Chhattisgarh DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3) District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4) Principal, Goverriinent Higher Secpndary School, Kondatarai, Block Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.) i! WRIT PETITION UNDER^TICLE 226QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA >NER HIGH GCMJ&T QK^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPIM WRTTPETmONfSV No. 6691 of20(» PETmONER RESPONDENTS Jeevan Lal Naik. VERSUS s State ofeUiaUisgath&S Otheas. WRIT PETmON UNDER AR-HCLE 226 OETHEtCCMSESTmJTIOIN OF INDIA SB:H<»n'Me^hri1SdtlshK.AtmUM»<ri;.l: y Present: Stn-i Anil Mourya, Advocate fbrthe petitioaer. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer fbr flie State/respondents, £ , ORDER.CORALt: .-; . :..,. : J .,': ' :i (Passedon 16th dayQfNwemba-, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr Ite-petitiona, on Bisteuctioas, salmitsthrt the petitioner does not wairt to eontest IhisspetitioiB on aay olte issuea raised herein, except that the respondeiit-aulhQrities may be dicected to eonsida- and decide fais repreSCTt^ions dated 3riOcfaAa, 20®(Atmea.te f/W) aad 7*^ September, 2009 (Aanexure P/ll), as e3q)editiously as: possible. 2. Shri Bhaduri, leamed Pahel Lawyer appearing far the petitioaer suhiaits that ifthe representations, as stated above, are pen^ng considerstton, Ae same shall be considered and decided in its own perspeetive in aBeortfaace with law, as e3ipeditiously as possible, preferably within a period offibur weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa eopy offhis order. 3. In view ofthe foregoing, according to learned counsel ajpearing for Ifte petitioner, nothing suryives for adjudication. 4. Consequently,tfiewritpetitionisdisposeddf. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Asut Satish K. Agnihotri