3? é: Q) yf—W’p I U AT JABALPUR 2000 N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT : ‘WRIT PETITIDN N0. PETITIONER Smt. Neelam Soni, ged about 33 yrs, A Wl'o. Sri Kamles Kumar Soni, 20/1 350, Subhash Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Through: Secretary, ‘ Manpower Planning Department ‘A Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopa. 2. The Dirac-tor, Technical Educatian, MP Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal 3. The Principal: Govemment College of Eagineering & Technology, Rajpur 4. State‘Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AN OF INDI / h ’ l ‘v' D 227 OF THE CONSITUTIGN A yf%“’0 ‘ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU DL. 3€-5, “w. T JABALPUR « 2000 Amended vide C.O dtd 26-6-03 1. State of Chhattisgarrg. Through: Secreta , Manpower & P anning Department D K S Bhawan, mntralava, Raipur. C.G) Director.Technical Education Ralpur GS / A CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI H.L. DATT, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI VV.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. . Present: Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. 3/ Shri State. Sumesh Bajaj. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to ORAL ORDER (Passed on O1 March, 2007) he following oral order of the ourt was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.. The petitioner calls in uestion the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal" for short) in Misc. Application No.458 of 1998, dated 21.01.2000. By the impugned order, the Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the order passed in O.A. No.3153 of 1994 suffers from error on the face of t V record, has recalled its earlier order and has restored the Original Application to its me for a fresh decision in accordance with Iaw. (2) The Tribunal while allowing the Misc. Application 458 of 1998 has taken into consideration the contentions canvassed by both the A parties to the Iis. It has come to the conclusion that while passing the} HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH U Writ Petition No. 4214 OF 2000 S! T C J q PETITIONER Smt. Neelam Soni Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others order in O.A. No.3513 of 1994. the Tribuna! has not taken into consideration certain aspects of the matter and therefore; thought it fit to recall the order. in our View, the findings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal in no way can be considered as erroneous. Therefore, interference with the said order is not caiied for. Accordingly, the petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Disposai of the writ petition WIH not come m the way of the State Govemment m granting any relief that they intend to grant to the petitioner Ordered accordingly. (3) in view of the disposal of the writ petition, question of consideration of the orders and directions issued in Misc Application No 251 of 1999 wouid not arise for our conSideration \ f Sd/— .R ” l a Sdl- Chief Justice Vijay Kumar Shrivastav Judge r n