IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No. l6Lt5 OF 2010 PETITIONER Harihar Prasad Parate, S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Parate, Aged about 32 Years, Occupation- Service, Working as peon, Office of Advocate General, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, R/o Ganesh Chowk, Chingrajpara, Post Office S.E.C.L. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS '.-< -o'" .^ y^y -^y ^-y-y y-' .fe' •^^/ <>-• 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Advocate General, State of Chhattisgarh, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through: Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department, Pt. Dindayanl Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ART!CLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR THE LIKE /o •^-7 7ST ^IFIRTq, ^lwre, |s|<vll<-l^< ^.P,(S-)^,^°)]lA|-Q sn^! ^f R-<i<* IB' (S3: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 15-04-2010 <=M*i[<ri<^1 ^iWV^ ^T fs^i <P^^!< Bhrivastava, >1.1 Depijity Ft petitioher Shri Ranbir Singh Mariias, Shri Y. S. Thakur, State/respondents. Heard. This petition has been fiied by| notice dated 06-04-2010 (Annexure required the petitioner to show caus^ canceiled. Learned counsei for the show cause notlce, the petitioner (Annexure P-9). Learned counsei for| to file this petition arose on account according to her, shows that the r< decision in this matter. Leamed Deputy Advocate submits that no finai decision has at> petitioner. Notice was issued to th4 proposed action, and by that notice, for proposed action. It is also against show cause notice and the Taking into consideration thi against show cause notice as Advbcate for the Detittoner. Advocate General for the »ie submitted ssime the petitioner assaillng show cause -1), by which, respondent No.2 has as to why her appointment be not submits that in response to said (ias fiiecS his reply on M-04-2010 Ithe Detitioner submlts that ocGasion bf the contents of the notice, which ^spondent No.2 has already taken (peneral for the State/respondents far been taken in the case of the petffioner to show cause against authority has disciosed the basis that this petition is on!y directed is pre-mature. (t this petition has been filed onty taking into consideration the aiso .•.!.! <prw—FS/147—2/2010—1,00,000. ,^-^s, S ft>.. '" 1 1u . '1'"® 'K. ^sr 7^irai?pT, ^ftwTs, fsicii-'-i^ „-..^.!...LCJ..fv?.,liL(5i.LoiB 3(1^1 -CR^T (1?i3^S?) •an^i^it Rpir^ ^'H^i^^RT^' '^RIIW ^itei sn^f —2_. Tumane statement made at the bar bv the led the State/respondente that no final de4 i am not inclined to entertain this petitj the respondents to take appropriate due consideration of the reply submitt^d In view offoregoing, the petitiorj ^>S<lfwft'T TfW^if ^f fs-^l <[^i^R ^? aiRn SII^T ^ned Deputy Advocate General for [ision in the matter has been taken, jon at this stage. It will be open for d4cision in acoordance witti law. after is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrwastava Judge