^x^m^ 1 > (v AL€ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rCHHATnSGARHY WRFT PFTmON N0. SS&-0 Q? 2005 PETmONER N. L. Sarve Son of Shri Sukaluram Sarve, aged about 46 years, Posted as Lab Technidan, in District Malaria Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS /'' ••° .d^' ...** .^5 ^>" //r _<<•* ^V7«^ ^' ^><y\'" y <•' ^' ^^ ^.<^>'" ^yy "y /'" ^ ^^y' ^ ^0& ^•^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Health and Famity Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Dlstrict Malaria Officer, Composite Bultding, Room No. 22, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Dr. S. K. Tiwari^ Son of not taiown, agect about 57 years, Dlstrict Mataria OfGcer, Composite Buitding, Rot>m No. 22, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). r: WRLD: PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THfc CONfeTrTUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF WRH" IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHlbmON ETC. .§^.i ^ n i ^ ^^os x , ^ 80.4 r,^A;^^r<^ ^^^^ /^^Ay:'i^ ^s^"... ^-% srra -y' ^ (&• l^ $• Ku» Mei 8adiM s&ngh, 2»ate Te^itttcs&ati^ Posted i^ ^lma:^ Vt^mim €eatre, ^ssmQ&^w, Maiiipat, Mstriafe surguja <G.O^ , BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRi, J. WRgT,PETSTIONN0.59SOOF2005 Petltioner Respondents Versus N.L.Sarve State of Chhattisgarh and others ^K^\ '• - Bhaskar Payashi, counssl for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Vernna, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sameer Behar, counsel for respondent No.3. None appears for rsspondent No.4. ORDER (Passed cn 28th-Day-orFebruary, 2007) The petltioner while worklng as Lab Technician In the offlce of Dlstrict Malaria Officer, Bilaspur has been transferred to Primar^ Heaith Centre, Narmadapur, Mainpat, Dlstrict Surguja, vlde order 14-11-2005 (P-1). The petitioner itiipugns the order dated 14-11-2005 (P-1). 2. This Court, vlde Interim order dated 03-12-2005, granted of the Impugned order 14-11-2005 (P-1) tlil the next of hearing. 3. Wlth the passage of tlme, the writ petition has become infructuous, to which counsei appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 has no objectlon. 4. Thus, the writ petition is dlsmlssed as having become Infructuous. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 6opat