HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGAKH: BILA$?UR Writ Petition (S) No. 4729 of 2008 Petitionar Smt. Shanti Satapathi, D/o. Lam Shri Balram Mmhl‘a, aged abgut 57 yams, Assistant ’i‘eachcr, posted at (Emit. Middla Schooi, Rajaev .xaxxdhi Nagar, Tahsil & Dist. Raiggrh {CG}. Versus B§§Qggd€nts 1. Sfate. of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Departme‘nt? D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Dixector ‘ Public instruction Deparuncgt, Raipur (CG). District Educatién 0%mr, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). Dy. Director Education Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (CG ’ > Black Etiucaiion OiYicer, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh (CG), jWn't Petition under Ai11'cic 226 of the Constitution Gf India) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shni RS. Patel, counsel for th6 peiitionw. Shri M.P.S. Bhaiia, Dy. Govt. Advoca‘ie for Qm State. - ERA}. GRDER Wassed 0n this 28m day of August, 2008) With 1:116 conscmt of Earned counscl appaaring for the parties, the matter 13 heard iinally. 2) Learried counsel appearing for the. petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press this petition on merit, at this stage. i‘lowever. the petitioner may be graoted liberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned to consider his case in the light of the judgment and order dated 15-12—2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 7002 of 2006 {Yogeshwar Prasad Patanwar Vs. State Govt. ofChhattisgarh’ 8'1; others). 2_ 3) Shri Bhatia, learnad Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for tha State submitS that ihat in the event, a rcprcsentation is madc, the Same shall be considered , in accortiance with law, in its own merits Within a yeriod offour weekS from the date of receipt of a coyy of this order. 4) in View of the foregoing, according to leamed counsel appean‘ng for the petitioner, nothing sulvives in this matterv AccordingEy, the yetition stands dieposed. of. SR § i Sd/— ,i :Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘ \r\ _