<z^/<^z SingteSeniDh IN THEmGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fS) N0. ^) 9'3> / 2011 PETITIONER 1. Amitesh Singh, S/o. Shri Rampratap Singh, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). &SPONDENTS VERSUS 1. ^\ %-v ^iM^" , ,..-<;-y<^'" .^>' ^^' State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretaiy, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.&. Bhawan, Raipur C.G.) 2. The Chief Execution Officer, Zila Panchayat Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .L r jjIGH COURT CT CHHATTISGARHATBIl<A8PSJR 8B i HON'BLE MR. JVSTICE PmTWKER MWAK®£ W.P.fSI.NO. 3873/2011 PBTITIQNBR Amitesh Singh versus RESPONDBNTa State of Chhattisgarh 8& Others 8hriA.N.Pandey, counsel for the petitioBer. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy, A.G. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARflCLS 226 OF THB C<»iSTITUTIONOF INDIA ORDBR (20.07.2011) Qrievance of the petitioner in the present petltion is that though he was selected for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Maths), his candidature has wrongly been rejected on the ground that he has obtaxned B.Ed. degree from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh which aa^ordirxg to the respondents is nct recognized. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the mitia! list names of the petitioner was included but subsequently upon objeoticn being raised during oounseling the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered. State counsel submits that the petitioner has an altemative remedy under Rule 13 of the Chhattiegarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Reoruitment and Conditions of Sennce) Rules 2007 and therefore the petitioner should approach the appellate authority. At thi^ stage, coun^el for the petitioner sufomxts that he may be pennitted to withdraw this petition with Ilberty to file appeal before the Commissioner. The 8ubmission as made by the counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the State counsel. Accordingly^ the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. In the eventuatity of filing any such appeal by the petitionery the same would be decided on merits by the competexit authority expeditiously. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictiy in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge