7y. HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB CHHATTI8GARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon^ble Shri Satish K. Aguihotri, J. W. P. No. No. 2094 OP 2003 Petitioner Rakesh KiiBiar Saxsena, S/o Shri Kainal Kishre Saxsena, Aged about 37 years, Occupation-NU (iineniployed), R/o Sahu Bhawan, Kasdol, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents : 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattlsgarh, fhroiigh Secretaiy, General Adniuiistration Department, Maatralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir (C,G,). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Departm.ent of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipiir (C.G.). Director, Publlclnstrctions, Raipiir (C.G.). Presesit: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shii Prashaiit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. ORALORDER $8th Pebruary, 2006) Dr. Alok Shiikla, Secretery, Ediication Departinent, Raipiir and Shri A.B. Dzibey/Director, PubUc Instructions Departraent, Raipur are present ui person ia tiie Coiirt, they ensiire an^d assure fhat all fhe officers of fhe Education Departoient have been directed to file reply/retum in. all fhe pending cases of fhe education departaient expeditiously. [ ^\^ Bablu In viei¥offhe above, presence offhe Secretaiy as weU as fhe Director, Public Instoructions are dispensed with. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner states fhat fhe respondents have coinpUed witli fhe order dated 21.12.2000 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Adniiaistrative Tribnnal, Bench at Raipur iii O.A. No. 454/1998 as well as the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by fhe Madhya Pradesh Adniiaistrative Tiibunal, Bench at Raipiir in M.A. No.13/2002. The petitioner has been appoiated on coinpassionate basis on fhe post ofShiksha Karmi Grade-III. In view of afore-stated facts, learaed counsel for the petitioiier subniits fhat tliis petition has become infnictuous, to which learaed counsel for tibie respondents have no objection. At fhis stage, tiie petitioner prays for liberty to make a representation for uicidental relief before appropriate fonim/azifhority. Liberty is graated to fhe petitioner, as stated above. For fhe reasons stated above, fhe writ petition is disniissed as haviag become iafructuous. No order as to costs. Sd/- •l \ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge