SI^LEBI G^- \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.rs.) N0. ^^^^ /2010 PETITIONER: VERSUS RESPONDENTS rO. ^ ^M ^'/^^ ^/y^^ .s?' .<£'' -^ ^'.J3 ^ ^ 4. 5. ?.: l^ss?1 Murlidhar Patel S/o Sri Jhanjhan Lal Patel, Occupation Service, posted as a peon at Middle School Keshla, Block Lailunga, District Raigarh R/o Village Bhedwan, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Block Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) Digamber Prasad Patel S/o Kanti Kumar, aged about 37 years, Occupation Service posting as Assistant Grade III, Block Education Officer, Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.) Purshottam Lal Darshan S/o Peelu Ram, aged about 37 years, Occupation Service posting as Assistant Grade III, Block Education Officer, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) R/o Village Bade Dumarpali. P.0. 0 (3> Paragarh, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ;'^"i Versus Murlidhar Pate! State of Chhattisaarh & Others fRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 22S OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDiA Shri Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. ihri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyer forthe State. (Passed on 14th day of January, 2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petitlon is that though he is entit!ed for his promotlon to the post of A.G.-III from the post of Peon, but the same has not been aranted to him. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the junlors i.e. respondent No.4 & 5 have been asven promotion, ianorina the case ofthe petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appe a representatior be decided in ipects of the case. for State submits ti' )efore the respondent accordance with lav.' after that it ti e Detitioner 3.2 consider ail the 3. Accordingiy, the v/rit petltion is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent No.2 v/ithin period of one month from the date of receipt of copv of this order and in turn, it is expected from the respondent No.2 to declde the same within a further period of fou.r months from the date of its recespt. 4. However, It is made clear that thls Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned wou!d be a llbertv to decide the same strictlv, in accordance vvith law. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok