V^.^S^-- ^^•^w^^^'c" ^.^•^Al 'r 5 }s~ci IN THE HIGH COLTRT OF JUDICATtJRE OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. / 2011 SlNBUiBENGH PETITIONER /Arun Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Hira Lal Jaiswal, Aged about 42 years, Uppei- Division TeaGher at Qovt. Middle School, Saraibhadar Block Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) , VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.^ State ofChhattisgai-hThrongh: The Secretary, School Education Department D.K. S. Bhawan, RaipurfC.G.) 3. ^ Distncf Educatiorir ° '.Offlcer, Raigarh, DistriGt Raigarh (C.G.) < '"'•.•' ' ' • ' ' ' 3. iJoint DirectQr.Treasuty Accourits and Pensioh, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4.-' Block Education Officer. Bloek - , Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) il ;i ^i 'i i[: -\ 1 WRITY PETITIQN • UNDER : ARTICLE 226 .&F. THE CGNSTITUTION OF INDIA FORISSUANGE QF WRITIN NATURK OF MANDAMUS ^ ^ERTIORARY; 0R ANY OTHERWRrTOELIKENAiTU^EETC. ;' ' .Thevpetitiorrer most^^ su.bmit.asun.der.: ^ , • - : . , . .: , ' :-,, \, . ^b •<;., t,.;~ HIGH COUBT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTTPETmONfS') No.08<rf'20U . FBTmQNER :AmnKumaTJaiswal. VERSU8 RESPONDENTS : State ofCUiattisgaA & CMhers. WRTF PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OE INDIA :: --.--•:...»..-- SB: Hon'Me Shri Sadrii K. AenaiBtei. J. Present: ShriD.R.Patel,AdTOcate&rltoepetitionfir.. StiiriSushil Dubey, G..A. fia-Ae Stateft-es^Qndeaiti ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 05* day af Januaty,2Qll) 1. Bythispetiti<Mi,lhepetiti(MiwseeksadiTectioato1toeregpomdenteto pay two advanee incranetrts from the date of passing ®fD-Ed exammation, on hte own expenses, duriag his serviea period. 2. Shri Patel, leamed eounsel appearing forthepetttioaeFsubnntsdiat the issue involved in 'Qse present case is no loi^er res integraaslihs same has been considered aad dedded by Ifae Suprane Comt in Asha Saxena v. State ofMf. .& Ors. as wetl as by dus Court ia Ifae matter of Yashwant Kumar Sharadweg' v. Municipal Cofporfition, Durg & anothe^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State^Qw^tef Chhattisgarh and anotherf. . ^.,... ^^^^^^^ * 3. Shri Patel furthersubmitsthatfhe instant pelition issqua'ely CQ-wred by the decisionas aforestated. Thus, Ifae petiticawr may;be permitted to make a repr^entation todeeide his caseinthe lighfcfflf^a-est^ed *2009(II)MPJR(SQ59 22006CII>MWR-C096 SWP(S)No.4130of2005 —_J 'N. '••siS-SS ''^*<<^' 'i-^SS. 12.\ decision, subjeet to verification of l8ie fact arto whettier the petitioaer has aequired D.Ed eertificate oa his ovm expmses duifag Ae course ofhis serviee. . „ 4. Leamed counsel appeaAig for ttie State/respondents sutmiite that in the event, the petitioaer mafces a repiesentaticm, the sassae wUl be considered and deeided, in accordance with law attl in tiie li^tf of the decisi<ms offlie Supreme Court viAsha Saxena (siyi^ as^wvil as this Court in Yashwccnt Kumcir Bharadwcg w^Qapesh Kumcv^ Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks ftom tite d^e o£ receipt ofthe representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed eomisel appeaing for Ihfi petitioners, nothing survives in tiiis petitua fura^udiea&a. j 6. Accordingly, the writ petitioa is disposed of '&_____ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "'Ashok