IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P.Ng. %§75/z2006 (Service Matter) PETITIONER Shiv Chandra Shah aged about 40 years S/o. Shri Lal Bihari Shah Sanchalak, Mata Rukhmani Adivasi Kanya Ashram, ,Dimrapal, Distt.—Bastar (C.G.)F VERSUS Distt.—Baster (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U[A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As given in the cause title . WW RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh ' Through : The Secretary, Schedule caste/Schedule Tribe.& Backword Classes welfare department, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) REGEW 333;;lg he?“ AOg Collector, Trible UAW“ 9.3”” q"“g Department, Distt. — Baster Eaymk- (C.G.) 3. The president Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, Distt.—Baster (C.G.) 4. Secretary, Mata Rukhamani Seva Sansthan, Dhimarapal, HIGH C01 IRT OF GHHATTISGAgg AT BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETITION No. 7575 of2006 x‘ WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shxi D.R.Sharma. Senior Advocam with Smt. Rani Pathalg Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 & 2. ORDER ORAL 10 day of November, 2009) (Passed on Heard learned c0unsel for the paxties. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Smt. A.Lall v. State of Chkattisgarh & Others", thus the petitioner may be permitted to make a represemation to decide his case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification asto whether the respondent No. 3 and 4-Institute is a Government Aided school and the petitioner is a teacher within the sanctioned strength. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents l and 2 submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks hem the date of receipt ofthe representation. In View of foregoing according to the learned counsel appearing for the )bx petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. l, Sdl- Satish K. Agni‘notrt ‘ Judge 1 2007(1) BLJ 265 PETITIONER Shiv Chandra Shah. r VERSUS r ‘ RESPONDENTS : State ofChhaiiisgarh & Others.