, w “LE WNW IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W P (S) NO H?L{?Of 2010 : Radheshyam Sahu, S/o. Shri Jagatram Sahu, aged about 45 years, Head Master, Government Primary School, Satnamipara, Kaundkera, Block Fingeshwar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS‘i /The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary School Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, " ‘ Education G.E.Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) :2)f/District Education Officer, District Raipur Raipur, j, (Chhattisgarh) :3) Dhanvantari Kumar Sinha, son of not known, Teacher Government Middle School Girls) Fingeshwar, Block Flngeshwar Dlstrlct Ralpur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i . (SB: Hon’me shri Manindra Mayan shrivastqva, J.) ’ I, 3-08-2010 V Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the Statelrespondents No.1 8. 2 on advance copy. Heard. Grievance of the petitionei is that though the petitioner has preferred‘a representation aggrieved by supersession, the same has not been decided tiii date. Learned counsel appeari for the petitioner referred to the gradation, list (Annexure P-1) rom which it is found that the petitioner is piaced over and a ove respondent No.3. It is atso r stated in the petition that the pe tioner holds qualification of M.A., ,D.Ed. and also belongs to OBC ategory. it is also beenraverred in the petition that the petitioner h s never been communicated with any adverse remark nor any De artmental Enquiry is pending and also he has not suffered any pu ishment. ln view of the averments ade in the petition, itis revealed that junior to the petitioner has ’Ween promoted. On representation {L f L. 2 n mmwcswirW/wW \ . L L 200 ' > m W (Wu) ‘ a; 3m mam mm > H1200 WW,m (Wu) mmfaias wmm WW wfm *Wm made by the petitioner, the respondents are under obligatioa to decide the same and communicate him the basis for his supersessnon. Accordingly, this petitio is finally disposed of with the direction that the responden No.2 shall consider and take appropriate decision on petiti ner’s representation by speaking order within a period of three onths from the date of receipt of copy of this order. lf grievance of the petiti ner is not redressed; it would be open to the petitioner to ta e recourse to such remedy“ as available to him under the law; r Manindra Mohan Shrivastavgj '7 mvf‘mm Sd/- \i Judge \\ -' «mun i rm nun