»- '* .'I XI-HC—78 an^iwfiFfw ^wsn^igm? ^,y -F ^) 'Svf ^|4||<»|4|^ ®tl)y<|<o,fsjMiy^ ..lu.^...62..A+T..-..^..ir^o. WHC'IT g,inq,—»"-•- ••••^200 SIT^I ''ra^r (lcifj°i<^r) TOireT^rfrosii^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Mamndra Mdhan Shrlvaylava. J. 19.8.2010 Shri D.N. Prajapati, coun^el for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Heard on adruission. qbi<<?^<ft'T ^wv^f ^ ^"^ Tf^T^R ^aifinsn^i Lawyer for fhe State on advance copy. This pedtion has been|filed by the pedtioner aggrieved by the proceedings initiated vide shov)r-cause notice dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner hEJs been asked to show-cause as to why he be not reverted on account certificate. Learned counsel for 'the of failure on his part to submit caste letitioner subinitted that in reply to show- cause notice, the petitioner has| already submitted his reply, copy ofwhich has been placed on record as A|inexure P-7. In the opinion of this C<)urt, this petition is preinature, inasmuch as the petitioner has rushed to| the Court without awaiting decision of the respondent-authorities pursuaflt to show-cause notice dated 26.7.2010. In case, any adverse jaction or order is passed against the petitioner, peddoner would be|atUberty to take recourse to such remedy as inay be available to hiin uad respondent- aufhorities are sej notice, to which reply has er the law. However, at this stage when the zed of the matter pursuant to show-cause so been submitted by the petitioner, no interference can be made. Petition is therefore di^missed as premature with the liberty as aforesaid. Sd-/ ^^aMohanShrivastava 2: „, ^ Judge gy-