HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1386 of 2005 Petitioner Uiuashaitkar Venna, aged about 51 years, S/o Shri Krishiia Venaa, Occupation Accountant, Govt. Post Graduate CoUege, Korba, R/Q Kharuiora, Tah. & Distt. Korba Versus Respoadents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Higher Education Departnient, Maata-alaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. CoiiUnissioner, Directorate/Departtaent of Higher Education, Govt. Science CoUege Premises, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director, Department of Higher Education Directorate, Govt. Scienee CoUege Premises, Raipur(C.G.) , 4. Principal, Govt. Post Graduate CoUege, Korba (Wnt Petition uader Artiele 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri J.) Ms Mala Dubey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Ms Smita Ghai, Paael Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER(oral) (Rassed OQ fhis 22nddayofJune, 2009) 1. Learaed cduLasel appeariag for fhe petitioner submits that in the identical niatter, iavolving thesanie issue, fhis Court by prder dated 3.4.2008 io. Writ Petidon (S) No. 2811 of 2005 {Umashanter Verma Vs. Govt. of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatdsgarh) & others}, has reserved Uberty to the petitiorrerto .^ TsaSs a fi-esh representation with a direction to the concegraied ^ •': : authority/State Govenunent to consideraud decide'the s|ame, iu accordance with law, as eariy as possible, preferably wiffiifflia; period ofthree xuonfhs. JBIT « l^ ![i ^ll ^i3 i lt n !!!!! .'S'lt II! :::itl":ll -2- Ms Mala Dubey, learned coiinsel, furthersubinits fUattiie sanie order may be passed ia fhis writ petition. Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General with Ms Sniita Ghai, leamed Paiiel Lawyer, appearfag for the respondeats/State has no objection ifthe sameorder is passed na this writ petitiou. In view of fhe foregoing, this writ petition is disposed of with \ Hberty tb fhe petitioiier'vto tuake a fresh representation to fhe concemed authority. In the event, a representation is made by fhe petitioner, fhe same shall be considered aad decided by fhe concenied authprity, on its pwn inerits, in accordaace wifh law, as early as possible, preferablywittuna period ofthree monfhs, from fhe date Of receipt of the representatiQn. No order asto costs. •• ' ' ' . ,—— _ SatishK. Agmhbtri j Judge Tfaakur