HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition IS} No. 2050 of2009 Petitioner Snit. Chaiidaiia Sen Gupta, W/o Shri Kalyao. Sen Gupta, aged about 48 years, Kamla Devi Saiigeet Mahavidhyalaya, Rang Mandir, Gaadhi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Fonner Lecturer, Kamladevi Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, An Ashaskiya Shikshaa Saasthaa, maaaged aad goveraed under fhe provisions of fhe Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shiksha Saasfhaa Adhmiyam, 1978, Raag Mandir, Gaadhi Chowk, Raipur (CG). Versus Respondents 1, 2. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough its Secretary, Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Kamladevi Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, through its President Shri Shekhar Sen, Ashaskiya Shikshaa Saaget, Raag Maadir, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Indu'a Kala Sangeet University, Khairagarh, Chhatdsgarh. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotori J.) Ms Mala Dubey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Paael Lawyer for fbe respondent No. 1/State, ORDBR (Passed on this 29A Day ofApril, 2009) The chaUenge ia fhis petition is to fhe order dated 19,2.2008 (Annexure' P/1), whereby fhe services of the petitioner has been tenaiaated. Consequentiy, a direction to reiastate fhe petitioner m sendce wifh fuU back-wages has been sought for. The petltioner has preferred a statutoiy appeal agaiast fhe impugned order, which accordiag to leamed counsel, is pendiag consideration before the respondent No. 1. %^^ 3. Ms Ghai, learaed Paael Lawyer appearing for tiie respondent No.l/State subinits that the pendiag appeal has already been heard aad fhe saoie is reserved for order. She fiirfher subraits fhat fhe appropriate order shall be passed by fhe respondent No.l, expeditiously. 4, In view of fhe above subniission niade by leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 1, nofhiag survives ia fhis petitiou for adjudication. Even otherwise, when the statutoiy appeal is pendiag before fhe statutory aufhority, fhe writ petition is not inaiD.tamable durmg fhe pendency of fhe appeal, as no exceptional ground is inade out for interference, at this stage. 5. In view of the foregoiag, the petition is dismissed, as not inaintainable. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge