CE Haa% $lngle aanch IN THE HIGH COURT nF_cHHA"mSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {g_gyg.~;§:_t/ 5” Orr 2W3 PETITIONE : l. f Chandrfka ‘ Pra$ad Kashyap, s/o Shri Chotela! Kashyap, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Damru, Tahsil Baiudabazar, District Raipur‘ (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o late Shrl B.R. Sam, aged about 49 years, R/o Vlllage Jarve (Watgan), Tahsll Palarl, Dlstrlcl: Ralpur (CG) . Pramdcl Kumar Tiweri, S/o late Shrl Jaweharlal Tlwarl, aged about 49 year's, R/e Village Rohra, Bha‘tapara, Ellstrlcl Raleur {36,} Malkulal Verrrm, 3/0 late Shrl Janardizniel Velma, a ged abaui‘ Q year‘s, ‘R/G Village Ravan, Tahsll Slmga, District Raipur (CTGT) VERSU§ L/K State of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh: The $ecretary Department of School Education, IDHKS Biiawari, Raipur (CG) 2.“) The District Education Officer, Raipur‘, Dietrict Raiyur (C.G.) WRITWER ARTICLE: 225 OF Tti£ CGN‘u HTU HON Gt WMANDAMUS. INDIA FOR PROHIBITEON, ISSUANCE OF CERTIORARE A WRIT EN ETC Till“. OR NATURE ANY QIHER Of QIRECTIQN OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATT R R$ , ER 3a W, WW, Wk ‘FFL 200 a; mm (Wu) man am m $3 : Hawgm SHR: &U3’E‘£€E 17.<‘.‘17.ZG§9 Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, cou Shri Arvind Dubtiy, P‘L. After arguing at length, the petitieners have a genuin yet the same has not been ‘ permitted t0 withdraw the representation before responde has no obiection if the mention is withdrawn with liberty to make representation and the same Wouici be decided in accordance ners are eermitteri to withdr w the present petition with the aferesaic‘. iiberty. In the eventuaiity of petitioners making any such i weeks from the date of receir L t, 1 mmm WWW 1§WW PRH‘INKER §m nsel for the pe itioners. for the State. counsel for the zaetitioner s1}: nits that Claim of getting the pay increment but granted. lie LI submits that he may be resent petition with liberty to file 1t No.1. Counsel for the State “71th xaVf. Aceording‘w, tie cetitit em‘esenation within a eeriocl f thre of the cepy of this order, the same would be decided strictly in accomance with law m‘eiez‘ably Within a periocl of three months. it is made clear that this Court has rot expressed any opinion OD il€T1ES representation strictly in accorlance with law. in nd the authority would be at libertr to riecide the Pritinker Diwaker 1‘ Judge