&- ^' ^^•^ ^\(p'^ 1N THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^.\ ^' WRIT PETITION NQ. a99zt /2003 SingleBench PETITIONER ^ .•^.^' ^ RESPONDENTS y^^- ^' r^>- ^•y^"z^-^^ 0 '<" ^g^" .^ 1. N.P. Sharma, S/o Sri K.P. Sharma aged about 53 yrs Cast-General, Occu - Asst Grade II, Present Address M-12, C.G. M.S.M. Awasiya Parisar, Pension Bada, Raipur, Permanent Address - 5/8 Ravishankar Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) VERSUS ' 1. Union ofIndia thorough Secretary Dept. Of Personnel & Training, Govt. OfIndiaNew Delhi Stateof Chhattisgarh tfarough Secretary School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3. Secretary Chhattisgarh Higher Secondary Board D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) 4. Secretary M.P. Higher Secondary Board Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) I^.J^ vs:ssss^.^" 5. State of M..P. through Secretery School Education Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (C.G) WRIT__I>ETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS ANDCERTIORARL tG.__..-.. HICai COTOCT OP JUDICATiyRB CHHA.TTMMSARH: BULAWIIR SSn^e Ben<A: Hen»MeBlarl Satlrii K. A^nlliotrl, J. W. P. Ito. 2994 OP 2003 Petitioner : N.P. Sharma Versus Respoiidents : UxiionofIadia&otiherSe Smt Hamida Siddique^ counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri S,K. Beriwal, counsd fixr respottdent No.l/UiAm. of India. Shri P&nkaj Shrivastava, panel lawyer for respoxident No.2/State. Shri Shaflendia Shulda^ couxisel for rc^poDdeat HoA. ORAL ORDBR (21"* Pebnuury. 2006) 1. The petition.er was empbyyed as Assistant Qrade II in Boand of Secondaxy Education, Madhya Pradesh. By oider dated 25.6.2002, the pctitioaier has been allocated to fhe State of Chhatdisgarti^ B(»rd of Secomlaiy Bducatioa, Raipur, CUhattisgarfi, contraxy to his option. Tlie pctttfoner has opted for State of M.P. on tfae grouad fhat petitioner^s wife is working as A.N.M. in Gowt HomoepatlMC MecUcal Colte^e Bhopal, (M.P.); 2. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioncr subxnits that fhe petitioxfccr waiits to inake a representation to ffae respondente/aufhorities for considerixig his <»se fbr reaUocation to the State ofMadhya Rraudesh, to which hsanied counsel for fhe respondents have 110 objectibxi< 3. In view of fhe fbrcgoing, thc petitionCT is gFBnted liberty to mahe a represeiitation beforc the coaicenicd authorities, Tfae concemedaufhorities are accordmgfy direct^ to ooosider and decide fhe represeiitatk>n, if any, and to pass onier m accordaiice wifh law, wifhia a period of eij^it w^ks fix>m flie date ofrcceipt ofreprcsentatfofiL 4. In view of fhe above, fhe writ pctitktti staads diBposed of No CTder as to oasts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge a?u^