mwwwm Wwwww if 5w C$ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SWGEE QEWH w.P.(S)No. Méé /2o11, Rupendra Kumar Dwivedi S/o.- Shri A.K.Dwivedi‘ aged bout 37 years, R/o Mamta Nagar, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PTER EITION VERSUS tate of Chhattisgarh hrough — Secretary Panchayat and Rural Welfare Department, Mantralaya D .K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Through :- Chief Executive Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.Gr.) .x/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. a S T 1) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {S1 No. 1466 of2011 WRIT PETITION UN DER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA “L s3: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K Agnihom, J. Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ' v ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 17 day of March, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the grievance ofthe petitioner in this petition is that though, vide order dated 22.02.2010, passed Vin Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava & Another v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others] wherein, this Comt had decided the controversy with regard to cut otfdate for the purposes ofreckoning eligibility, the petitioner is not being given the benefit ofthe same. Shri Majumdar further submits that in a similar matter Le. Ganraj Singh Rajpu‘t v, State of Chhatfisgarh & Another}, this Court has directed to consider and decide the representation ofthe petitioner strictly in accordance with law laid down by this Court in Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava & Another’. Shri Majumdar next submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure P/8) is pending consideration before the respondent authorities. 1 W.P.(S) No. 4829/2008, decided on 22.02.2010 \"‘\».\2\W.P.(S) No. 2832/2010. decided on 21.06.2010 . \\ PETYTIONER : Rupendra Kumar Dwivedi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Another. Leamed counsel appearing for other side does not controvert the above submission and submits that if the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration, the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, as aforestated. In View of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear the above order shall be subject to availability ofvacancy and further, if the vacancy had not formed a part of the subsequent advertisement for selection, if any. Amit