<^?1<T^- F5 "'! 't-t v IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION rS) N0. '<-f6S^ /201Q WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETCTmNER '^ RESPOND^NTS ^^ y-~A ,^^ ^M^y ~^<^\y ^-^"•/-- »'-? <^^ Narayan Prasad Pandey, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Pandey, occupation Lecturer, Presently working as Lecturer, Govt Migher Secondary School — Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Education, Dau Kalyan Singh y Bhawari, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Distrlct Education Officer, Distt. -Raigarh (CG) 3. ' Joint Director (Treasury, A/c & ^'Pension), Bilaspyr (CG) 4. Asst. Commissioner, Dept, of Tribal, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 5. r Principal, Govt Higher Secondary School - Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (CG) .^J& ss ..^^;?:... ^fep^-^^ I '^^'""•j "%, 'S^S •<ii<4i<i<i,®iil+i'ie,f°ldiy^< . W^.C^^.U-^s^/fo a?qN?' 3n^T'T?^' ('^'rig^tT) ari^rw R-fi'* "tTSH'STT^T ^TRT Tumane swixs^vSvs afi^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shr astava. J. 18-08-2010 Shri Tarun Dansena, counsel for th| Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer fbr th| Heard. Learned counsel appearing fcir the| entitled to benefit of two advance increml B. Ed. examinaSon before his appointmei| the issue involved in the present petition has been finally decided by the Hon'ble | Saxena vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 20p9 submitted that this Court has also tak^n 06-07-2010 passed in W.P.(S)No.3250 of) On the other hand, submission of| State is that this petition has been filed witf Govemment He prays that ifthe petitione^ will be considered on ifs own merits and irtac In this vjew of the matter, 1 am not stage. It would be open fbr the petitioner making appropriate representation, cl orders referred to above. In case such decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid obsen/ations, th|e petition stands disposed of. chf^t<n<fh TT!T??ff ^f 'fe^' xf^f^R ^sifinan^r petitioner. i^ State/respondents on advance copy. Ipetitioner submits that the petitioner is i^nts on account of he having passed kt at his own cost It is submitted that no longer res integra and the same ISupreme Court in the case of Asha (119 MPJR (SC) 59. It is further a similar view in his order dated &010. [learned counsel for the respondents- lout making any approach to the State would make representation, the same irtaccordancewith law. inclined to entertain this petition atthis to approach the State Government by aim^ig parity of treatment on the basis of rettesentation is made, respondents shall Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava —^ ,- Judge