^-^M^i^ ^^^^^3S.^"- daied. V-€^ cf?:i<^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR w. p. rs) NO. \ BIV& OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Abhimanyu Kumar Mourya, S/o Shri S.N. Prasad, aged about 35 years, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Biharpur, District-Surguja, (C.G.) VERSUS / : 1. State of Chhattisgarh : Through ^- Secretary, Department of Tribal Development and Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Collector, Ambikapur District- P- Surguja (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal ^ Development, Ambikapur, District-Surguja(C.G.) ^ 4. Rambhajan Soni, Lecturer, "$» Higher Secondary School, Biharpur, Orgi, District-Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1848 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Abhimanyu Kumar Mourya State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Jai Prakash Shukla, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the State/respondents. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA ORDER (29.0B.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition Is to the order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the charge of the Principal of Govemment Higher Secondary School, Biharpur, District-Sarguja has been directed to be given to respondent No.4. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 whereas respondent No.4 is lecturer and in view of various circulars issued by the competent authority the petitioner Is entitled to have the charge of the said post. 3. On the other hand, it has been argued by the counsel for the State that as the charge of the said post has been directed to be given to respondent No.4, the petitioner has no substantive and legal right to work as in-charge principle. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage he may be permitted to withdraw thls petition with liberty to make proper represerrtation before respondent No.3 and in tum the respondent No.3 be directed to decide the same expeditiously. 5. State counsel has no objection if any such directtQn is issued and the respondent No.3 decides the same in accordance w'rth law. ^' ,...".'%.: "^^^^ U€> -•^- 6. Accordingly, the pettttoner is permitted to withdraw this petitjon wjth the aforesaid liberty. In the eventuality of making any representation bythe petitioner, the same is expected to be decided by the authority concemed, as expeditiously as possible. •^ 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at tiberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with laiw. ,.,2^akel pr\t\< o\\ 3U^e