HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bSe Shrs R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Writ Petitjon (S1 No. 5608 of2010 Petitloner Respondents 5. "N Smt. Sushma Sahu, W/o Shri Rupendra Kumar Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o Block No. 18/D, 2D Type, Hospital Sector, Rajhara, District-Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rura! Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) through its Chairman, C/168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) State Councii for Educationa! Research and Training (SCERT), through its Director, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) Nationa} Council for Teacher Education Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NewDeihi-110002 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generat for the State. Ora! Order (Passed on 29th September, 2010) Per Dhlrendra Mishra. J;- (1) By this petition, the petitioner has chalienged the provisions offjxatlon of qualificatlon as second division graduation for appointment for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-li under the ruie of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and conditions of services) ,^'- -; (4) Ruies, 2007 as uitra-virus of Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being discriminative. (2) Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that a bunch of identical petitlons have already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01st July, 2010 passed in Ram Chandra Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others and other connected writ petitions and chaiienge to the constitutiona! validity of the above provisions have been rejected. However, while dismissing the petition, the petitioners have been given opportunity to appraise their grievances by way of fliling representation before the appropriate authority of the State Government and respondent/State, in turn, has been directed to decide the representation within three months from the date of production of a copy of the order of the High Court. He further submits that this petition may aiso dispose of in simiiar terms. (3) The above prayer Is not opposed by learned counse! for the State. !n that view of the matter, the instant petition isdisposed of with liberty to the petltioner to file representation before the State Government apprlsing grievances raised in this writ petition and if such representation is fiied, the same shali be considered and proper decision shal! be taken thereon as early as possibie preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order along with representation. —- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Vljay