G^/0^9- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S)No. U^^ 72010 PETITIONER ^.•^•;" ^^0^^ ^'0^^ v<' ^^•' ^- \)w Budhram Rajwade S/o. Late Bachan Ram, aged about 59 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. High School, Kailashpur, District Surguja (C.G.), R/o. Village Parsapara, Jainagar, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^,.:^.:»-0»-K>, 'x. :1 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Under Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Commjssioner, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.) 5. Principal, Govt. High School, Kailashpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 6. State Election Commission, Chhattisgarh, at Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. $ HIGHCOURTOF_CHHA>mSGARHATBILA8PUR PETITIONER' :RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4526 of2010 Budhram Rajwade. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. AlTllt WMT PE'm'ION 'UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'ITI'miON OF INTUIA SB: Hon' Me Slm Satish K. Asnihoti-i, J. Presepxt: 81m A.K.Prasad- Advocate for the petrtioner. Sliri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel La^yer fbrthe State/respondeiit No. 1 to 5. •ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 17Ea day ofMarch, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5 submits that the petitioner has already contmued at the. origma! place ofposting fbr more thari six months on account ofinterim order dated 19.08.2010 .granted bv this Couil. However, the said interim order was vacated 011 02J2.2010. The State/respondents may be .granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public mterest and adniinistrative exigency. 8M Bhaduri fuilher submits that the State/respondents shall not iiisist upon compliance ofthe impugned order dated 15.07.2010 (Amsexure P/l). 2. At this stage, whcn no elfect could be given to the impugiied order dated 15.07.2010 ('Amiexiire P/l) on account ofthe mterim order dated 19.08.2010, it is nof necessaiy to go into legality and validity ofthe impugned order dated 15.07.2010 (Amiexiire P/l). 3. In view of the above, according to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioiier, nothing sur^ives in this petition for adjudication. 4» Accordingly, the petition s'tands disposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge