s"-aaa"S»KsJSSi^y d. \'©' ,'G ^ IN TWi HIGH COORT OF jyDIC^lJKK_J^ BIt^^m(eai« T3S.GNt|i) WRIT PETJTION N©. ^73 ©F2@0£4 / P&TITIONER s ItAjeev Kumar Yadav, son ©£Shri jainardan prasad Yadav^ aged about 27 years, rcsident ©fF.C.I.RQacl, Tarbabar^ Bilaspur^ Sis tri ct-Biiaspur • (C«O.) V K' R S U S RB&PO E:NT s /Qabattisgarli publie ^erviec GoiunissiQB, $ Raipur, thx'ou§?a its Seeretary, Raipur , W.sptlct-Raipur • (C»G. ) / WR1T PET1TIQN ©NCdSRARTXCLBSfc 226 ©Ek TOK CGmTITUTI©^ QE ItiM^, ' " ' / -_—_-&.__ I- -F XI-HC-22 3TT^T'^T 'Rpri^i'3:n^F ^Ri<^> ^R^ ^' y^^:^——^ ^ ^- ^l^dj 'S^ "^qFTRT^, "^itH^, ^P^y 3H^T 'q^R ,^^.^.P.:. .,.7..3/^ ^ '^^8T' ^ 3??^T ^^lW <H^a 19.1.2004 Petitioner by Shri Vivek fl Shri Prashaat Mishra, A{ nespondeiit. Heaid on I.A. No.425/20| The petitioner lias mov«j| m fhe petition. The appli^ amendments be iacorporated. Heard on admission, By fhis petition filed| Constitution of India fhe evaluation and exaoiination Pablic Service Coinxmssion ia Leamed counsel for ^l<({<r^ii^ ^mwi^ f^^ <fa^{< '^'srf^pT^n^r ^anjanTiwari, Advocate. ^lvocate takes notice on behatf of fhe E)4. this application seeking amendment |kation is aUowed. Let necessary under Article 226/227 of the >nCT has challenged the method of conducted by fhe Chliatdsgarh year 2003. ic petitioner submits fhat same questions werc asfeed in the ^ear 2003 which werc asked m fhe examioation of 2002 witfa rei^aid to the examiaation pa[N?rs of subjects 'Geography* and 'A^iimal Husbandiy^. Since question papers of fhese two subject^ systeia should have beeii adoj fiu-ther submitted that the P.j representation in an objectivcj were repeated, therefore, scating >ted by tfae P.S.C, for which learaed counsel for the petitioner wadjte to inake a rcpresentatfon aad he P.C. may be directed to decide the manner wifh a reaiwned order to which learaed counsel for the r^spondent has no objection. Having heard leamed 43>UIlsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circujaistances of the case^J^am^^f^Ae XI-HC-22 ^ni^i^T 'f^w^rT^T ^W^^fiTT Thakur Ifc^ °^acr ^PTRT^, ^€raTra,l^rRT^ an^r ^^ 'qTO^T^TlN?"**""****""*"'^'*"****'*'**'*^^ 20° •fe^ST' ^H^T'^ITW ^cT ^^ wbich gn^vances opimon fhat it is a fit caae ia to make a detailed representati((>n petitioner is aUowed to mak<| Respoadcnt raismg aB his fix>m today and the Respon^ent objective maxiner by passing a ^easo] of one montii fix>m the date all fhe poiats raised by fhe Wifh the dircctabn aforesa|d, Parties are ^ititited for cerltified chJ^?d^t''1 •4I^<^I ^ fe^t iRsl^K '^'^{^R^TI^f fhe petitk>ner shoirid be allowed to fhe Respondent, Thercfore, the a detafled representation to fhe witbin a period of 10 days shaU deade the same in an ^easoned order withia aoother period of ^eceipt of rcprcsentation considering petitfioner, , fhe writ petition is dispos^l of. copy ot ttus ^nler. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge