^'°..^^ ^^ ^^^y v' '.-••:{-Y~f/^\P...-"" ^^•^" CD m t'r^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.INO. \UCK> /2010 PETITIONER: Jawahar Lal Banjare S/o Shri Ghana Ram Banjare, Aged about 60 years, Head Master, Government Girls Primary School, Singhra Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir- ChampafC.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS "? 1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Dista-ict Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR , WRIT PgTITtON (S) No. 1119 of 2010 PETITIONER : Jawahar Lal Banjare. VERSUS RESR3NDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Othere. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLrTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Saddi K. Agi'iihotri, J. Present: Shri D.R.Patel, Advoc^e for the petitiwier. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer tbr the State/respondents. Aiiut ORALC«DER (Passed on 17th day of Mach, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for <he petitiCTier, on bTStructtor^, submits ttiat the petitioner does not want to contest thls petition on merits at thte stage. However, he prays that the petitioner may be permttted to make a representation (D the respondent aulhorites, and in tum, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide his representation as ©(peditiouslyas possible in light of Uie judgment dated 01.09.2006 passaj by this Court jn MnarSaiRam & Othets v. StateofChhatSsgaih SOffiwsfW.P. (S)No. 4725 of2006). 2. Learned counsel appearing for ttie State/respondents sutenite tfiat in the event, the petttloner makes a representaUon, ttre same shall be considered and decidwJ in light cf the judgment aml order (rassed in AmarSaiRam (supra)3s expeditiously as possibte, preferabty wittiin a period ofeightweeksttom ttiedateofreceiptoftherepresentation. 3. In view of the foregoing, according to teamed counsel appearing tor the petittoner, nothing survives for adjudication at Uiis stage. -^ f ^ ' '"'~"—~—•——— 4. Accordingly, the writ petltion is disfx)sed of I Sd/- ' Satish K. Agnihotri i j Judge