Ww/o’bg Single Bench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NOFYSCH /2011 Bodhram, S/o. Shri Thakur Ram, Aged about 4O years, Constable Batch No. 342, Second Battalion, Sakri, District—Bilaspur (C.G.) V Versu PETITIONER ,w NTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S‘ Bhawan, Mantralaya, / Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, /Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director General of Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilai, District—Durg (C.G.) 4fwThe Additionai Director General Chhattisgarh Armed Force, /Raipur (C.G.) 5.x The Inspector General of Police 'Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilaj, District—Durg (CG) W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v s RESPONDE mm (Wm Heard on admission. Lgalned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allowed to participate in t e Armorer Condense Course, but his result has not been declared sent for training, the petiti d later on, though others have been r has not been sent for further training. He submits that so e of the persons who are similarly situated and who have parti ipated in the same training course along with the petitioner had pproached this Court by tiling W.P. (S) No.3925/08 and after con idering the reply med in that case, this Court issued direction send those constable for Armorer Training course and also t consider their cases by granting weightage or preference to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case is identical as he was also subjected to training in the same training course as the petitioenrs in W.P. (S) No.39 25/08 and therefore the petitioner herein is also entitled to simila: treatment as directed by this Court 1 in that ease. On the other hand, learmid counsel for the State submits that i the case of the petitioner would be examined by the competent mm u a r y g: r _ 1 e o mm WW£IT$2§$W SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra 12.8.20 1 1 XI-HC 78 @ in zoo mm mm (Wu) mmm g2- authority in the light of the order dated 21“ April, 2009 passed by Jan Singh and 01's. Vs. State of (S) No.3925/08] and appropriate ‘ decision in accordance with law shall be taken. mam ammamia? mm wm %sa1‘f%mm this Court in the case of ~Chhattisgarh & 01's. [W.P. uveen‘ ” In View of the aforesaid My gisposed of with liborty to the competent competent appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner in the n passed by this Court in the case of s found that the petitioner is also order shall be passed in case of the Les as directed by this Court in the the the representation before representation made, submissions made, this petition is petitioner to make a authon'ty. On authority shall such take light of the order which has bee Jan Singh (supra) and if it 1 similarly situated, appropriate petitioner also on the same li1 case ofJan Singh (supra). Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge