6 , w^.i^w^'^^S .s^ !*1 e m L^ve?<7^ s : Rptsie?!is - ''•CIVSjf IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.i W.P.fS) N0. Si^ 72010 PETITIONER '°.••'' Ravishankar Berman aged about 40 years, S/o- late Ram Lal, working as Shiksha Karmi grade-III posted at Primary School Nougai, District- Korea (C.G.) R/o- at Barrapara, Pendra, Tahsil- Pendra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. President, ^ Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandal, Head Office at Mandla, Distrid- Mandala (M.P.) M< 2. Secretary, ^48b^y Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandal, Head Office at Mandla, District- Mandala (M.P.) 3. i Departmental Co-coordinator, MjridW/. Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa <l— Mandal, departmental office at Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur(C.G.) 4. ' Collector, (Tribal Development), District- Korea (C.G.) 5. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Development, District- Korea (C.G.) 6. Smt. Shanti Tiwari, Head Master, posted at Middle School Salka, District- Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. lil.'ll 111''';! 3C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 5176 of2010 Ravishankar Bennan. RESPONDENTS VERSUS President, Madhva Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandal & Others. IVRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTfrUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me SJm Satish K. Agmhotn. J, Present; Shri F. S.Khare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate fbrthe respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/'respondent No. 4 and 5. ORDER(ORAL) 1. z. (Passsd on 26m day ofAugust, 2011) Leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 1 to 3 subimts that the petitioner has akeady continued at the original place of posting for more thaii one year on account ofinterim order graiited by this Court on 09.09.2010. The respondent No. 1 to 3 may be graiited liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping m view public interest and adimnistrative exigency. Shri Deslnnukli turther submits that the respondent No. 1 to 3 shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 06.08.2010 (Aimexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner. At this stage, when no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 06.08.2010 CAnnexure P/l) on account ofthe interifti order dated 09.09.2010, thus, it is not necessary to go into legality and validity ofthe aforestated impugned order. 3. In view ofthe above, accordiiig to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing surfives iathis petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge