•^ C^—^r-n ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILAgPURfC^G: WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1 32 R /20ll .-•'" .^'^ ^ff^5^ ^•'^.\ IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUtlON OFINDIA; AND IN THE IWATTER OF CHHATTISGARH UCCHHA SHIKSHA (SAIVIVIDHA SEVA) NIYAM2010 ; ANDBETWEEN : Dinesh Kumar Makhija, son of Shri Rajkumar Makhija, aged about 42 years, resident of Kirshna Book Dipo, NewAasha Talkies, Main Road, Post Qffice, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh VERSUS ^' _ : ..1.. ••... ^ . ._.. ;.. -' ' 1. State btChhattisgarh, Through Secretary. Department 6f Higtier EduGafidn, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. ' Commissioner, Departrnent of Higher Education, Government Science College Campys, Rajpur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Secretary, Department ofi Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4.' Principal, Government College Dalli Rajhara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ^- •• . • " •; .. " • , 5. Principal, Government Cqllege Bhanupratappur, District <Durc .Chhattisgarh 6.' Ms. Anjali Tawri, daughter of hot known to the petitioner, -age not known fo the petitioner, pi-eserifly posted as Assistant Professor (Samvida), Gdvgrnment. Colfege aS8 ^S-i^ Dalli Rajhara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. Ms. Ambeshwari Sinha, daughterof not known to the petitioner, age nqt known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant ProfessQj- (Samvida), Government College Bhanupratappur, District ^Durg^ Chhattisgarh WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE2260FTHECONSTITUTIONOPINDIAFOR ISSUANGEORAPPROPRIAtEWRiriNTHENATUREOFMANDAMUSAND FORISSUANCEOFOtHERSUITABLEWRlTS.OlRECTIONORDIftEGTlONS, ORDER ORORDERS S>1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION (S) No. 1924of2011 PETITIONER : DmeshKumarMaJduja. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETn-ION XJNDERARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Asarihotri. J. Present: Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey.OQvenmient Advocate forthe State/ respondent No. 1 to 5. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on lltb day ofApril, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the leamed Division Bench ofthis CQurt, by.judgment and order dated 19th October, 2010 (Dr. Neeta Shrivastava & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Aaother) and other connected matters, quashed Rule 5 and note (b) to seeond proviso to sub-rule (2) ofRule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Uccha Shiksha (Samvida Seva) Niyam, 2Q10 (for short 'theRuSes, 2010'). Despitethat, some offhecandidates who were selected under the above stated rules, are contmuing in service. Shri Das further submits that a several contempt petitions have been filed against the respondent authorities for non- compliance ofthe above-stated order. 2. In view of the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition, seeking compliance oftfae above stated order. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge •;4 Amit