''{') \ /-«-?' HIGH CQURT QFCHHATriSGARH : B1LASPUR W. P,_[31 No., 295 of 2009 Petitioners 1. Ooutam. Yadav, S/o Shri Trilocban. Yadav, aged about 32 years, resident of village Kotia, Tab.su Kuiikuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Harirani Yadav, S/o Shri Trilochan Ram Yadav, aged about 28 yeai-s, resident ofvillage Bhachliaraon, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.Q.) Versus Respondeuts 1. Uniou of iadia, through Secretaiy, Huinau. Resources Departm.ent, New DeUu. 2. State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough Secretary, Huinan Resources Departinent, D.K.S. Bhavau, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Mission Director, Rajya Pariyojana Of&ce, Rajeev Gandlu Shiksha Mission, Raipur (C.G.) 4. CoUector cuia Distnct Project Direetor, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpiir (C.G.) 5. Chief Executiye Officer, Zila Paachayat, Rajeev Gandlu Shiksha Mission, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 6. Block Education Officer, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT P&TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bie Shi-i Satish K. Agnmotri J.) Sliri M. K. Sinba, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate C3€neral witli ils Siuuta Jam, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1, 4 and 6. 2. (Passed on this 9th Day ofApril, 2009) The petitioners had filed a siinilar petition benig W.P.(S) No. 5001 of 2006 seekiag for fhe same relief. By order dated 2.7.2008 passed by fhis Court, ffaat petition was permitted to be wifhdrawn wifh liberty to xuake a representation before fhe concemed authorities to consider tlie names of tlie petitioners in new scbem.e i.e. Gyaa Jyoti. Acconlmg to learaed counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have tUed representation which is pending -•!-• 3. Thakur consideration. During the pendency of fhe representations fhe petitioners have filed this second petition seekiag for fhe similar relief. Thus, this petition is not xuaiataniable as fhe petitioners had ah-eady approached this Court for fhe same relief, whereiu the petitioners were granted Uberty to m.ake representation. Once ttie High Court has exercised its pov.er, granteng Uberty to the petitioners to inake representation, tfae petitioners caanot be permitted to file second petition on the same ground for fh.e saiue reUef. However, the petitioners m.ay approach fhe High Court after soiue decision is taken on their representation, as observed ia W.P.(S) No. 5001 of 2006 by order dated 2.7.2008. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General subniits that fhe pendiug representation i.e. Annexure P/16, shatt be considered aad decided, in accordaace wifh law, withia a period of eight weeks froin fhe date of receipt of a copy of fhis order. !n view of the foregoing, fhis petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. ———— —^_—. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ;