G^^^S2 ll'- IN THE mGH COURTQF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .^^^ ^ .'•ri'd^^''" ^•^^ '^•yy ^v. /F..^ v ,ss' 6^ W. P. (S) N0. H06 Li /2010 'Premnath Pandey, S/o. Shri Gorakh Pandey, aged about 52 years, R/o. Pratappur, Naka Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS ; 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretaiy Public Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). ^ i . • . 2. The Commissioner, Public Education Departinent, Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.K.) 3. Deputy Director, Public Education Department, Surguja Division, Surguja (C.G.) 3fr WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. DIRECTION, ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ^_tv'^ BII,£JIiL£.iuU..«u 78 3Ti^?I 'SR fiill'* WStI^i Silliqi Pra'ireea ^°E[ "tll^iyq, ®fll'(-l'IS,fsjtfK-l'j,-'. ^...:..U.£C-y....^>..-...Lf..6°..^^ SD^TTpR? («y(^t,q) d? TOnwHf^i 3ii^( Hon'ble Shri Maaindra Mohan Qhrivastava, J. 30.7.2010 Shri R.P. Siugh, counsel fof the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Pauel Li ^TqfepftTWTCTf'? fS<^ ^3ffiiIt3i1^?I 'fffyer for fhe State/respondents, on advaace copy. Leamed coTMisel for the pe^itioner subxaits fhat as the petitioner had obtained B.Ed. degree beforej is entifled to benefit of two advaait of the Supreine Court in. the casel Ors 0009 (01) MPJR (SC) 59]. On.the ofher haad, leamed] that uetiitiouer had obtained petition. is finally dsposed off w approach the rcspondent- av intrv into service at his own cost, he e iacreinents in view of fhe judgment ofAsha Saxena Vs. StaSe of M.P. 85 counsel for the respondents subnuts P.Ed, froin Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur aad, therefore, fhe ^natter requires examination by fhe Com.peteut Aufhority, as to whef|ier the petitioner is entitled to such benefit or not. Takiag iuto consideration t4e nature ofcontroversy tavolved, thte ifh a direction to fhe petitioner to |fhorities by niakmg appropriate icpresentation, claiming parity ojf treatment on fhe basis of orders ^cpresentation is inade, respondents i^ iu accordaace with law. |s not redressed, petitioner would be reiaedy as m.ay be available to him i^ferred to above. In case such shatt consider and decide the sam^ Iffhe petitioner's grievance at libertv to take recourse to suct] under the law. Sd/- \ Manmdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge