Sii m 4 S.B. (Service Mattert INTHE-H©N®LE.»I©teGOtII^ (^HA'TriSCrARH AT BmSSFtCTKteHaA'ltlSOi^RHY 8 WRTTPE'mWNfSWQ. /201.0; PETmONERi ^l^ ^"'S.rt*^^ / : ';.; Sushila Crupta, dai^hterpfMangal Sao Bamya.^aged about 53 years, ^riangasIteonGt^.Bc^Middle School, ChateradhaFlNagar Rmgaili, Districtl?aigarh,Chhattisgarh. ' ^•€y' "•y^.-^""1 *^' . versus ResDOndents 1. Sfate ofOlihattisgarlt.Throt^h ; SeGretary, Department of SGfapoL Education., DauKeilyan Singti Bhawari, Raipi-u-, GUhattisgaiti. 2. DistriGfEducationQ^ R8iigarh,iChliafctisga;rh. ? ^. CoUecrt^, Rmgarh, IMstrict'^^arli, .Cllhattisgarh...:': - ''^, ^ ,: • ; ''^.; ; •,. WRlTFE'n^Q]NEa(0EtK»^RI(ai2E2!260F'FHE ©QH8]3@ES®t0N^@aN©IA ~TS[ "41'lll<rlA|, ®Tily'|ia,fsldiy^ ^.....^,...^M:..^^ STI^T'T?^' ('^ifg^T) aiT^rw [<•<!+ TTSTT ^TT^T ^PTT^ 1 %^1TO< w^f 3(1^1 SB_:iiOS'BLS_MR..JUST!CB_PRIT!fcKERD!WAKER 18.11.2010 Shri Harish Khuntiya, counse| Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. for the Stj Counsel for the petitioner of law involved in the present 3510/2008 (Mongra Bai Mahant Others) and further in W.P.(S) No.3^ State of e.0. 8s Others) wbuch havfj therefore this petition may be dis^ submits that he is willing to with4 make fresh representation before subrnits that the respondent N0.^ representation as expeditiously as p4 Counsel for the State submit^ position to ascertain as to wheth| identical to that of W.P.fS! Nos.l however submits that let the representation giving the fuil facts orders oassed in the above two decii turn after examining the same, tbe| appropriate order. .AccordingSy, the petitioner petition with liberty to make fresh detailing his claim and in the representation, the authority conce) the Ught of the above two decision^ aporopriate order as exoeditiously aj cM*E^4l?T ^m<^ ^ fe^ <P»t^f< ^aTRmsii^r set tor the petitioner. :frte. suli>mits that the facts and auestion cfese are similar to W.P.fSi No. (s Another Vs. State of C.G. 85 J66/09 i'Makar Dwaj Pradhan Vs. been passed by this Court and ^osed of in the same terms. He .th4raw this petition with liberty to respondent N0.2. He however may be directed to decide the p(l>ssible that at this stage, he is not in a ;r the case of the petitioner is I 3510/2008 86.3266/2009. He p^titioner make a fresh detailed 4f his case along with the copy of Sions passed.by this Court and in competent authoriy would pass is permitted to withdraw this b'epresentation before resp. N0.2 et?entua{it.y of making any such ~ned would examine the same in passed by this Court and pass possible. Si^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge