?” . Q‘ ‘9’ @@ wilfz; 3§§§é§i§ EEfégH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.1>.(s.) No. [83 /201o PETITIONER: Smt. Kavita Yadav W/ 0 Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav, Aged about 43 years, Assistant Teacher/Superintendent of Pre Metric Scheduled Caste, Girls Hostel Baramkela, V Block Baramkela, DistteRaigarh (C.G.) VERSUS s’ggRESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Seéretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh (C.G.) The District Education Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1953 of 2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Kavita Yadav VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble $hri Satish K. Acmihotri. J. Present: Shri H.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Stata “NV ORDER {ORALI _ (Passed on 27‘“ day of Apnt, 2010) 1) By this pétition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of L passing of B.Ed‘ examination, on he? own expenses; before entering into service. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no Ionger res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Ashe Saxene v. State of MP. & Crs.’ as welt as by this Court in Yashwant Kumer Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anetherz and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another? 3) Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra). Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide her case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts: 1 2009 (in) MPJR {so} 59 2 20:36 Ii) MPJR—oeee awe. tux-man xterm: \ “a?” /, Ashok K Learned counsei appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same wiii be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and in the light 0f the decisions of the Supreme Ccurt in Asha Saxena (supra) as -weil as this Court in Vashwant Kumar 8haradwaj (supra) and - Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. in View of foregoing, according to the learned counsei appearing for t‘ne petitioner; nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. _ i ‘ Sd/- M SATISH K. AGNmOTRI Judge i