.^^,^^^ s.\^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0. 17 7-5 OF 2004 PETITIONER Kedarnath Rathore S/o Late Shri Bhoopdev Prasad Rathore Aged / about 59 years, Assistant Teacher Science, Government Higher Secondary School Portha, Tahsil Sakti District Janjgeer-Champa, ^0< ...§^^ 3WV"lri^-C^.-" .^^"Y^^Tfy^M--" ^s^ed.w^'^x1 da1siad'" RESPONDENTS ^^. 'C^F ^%^ ^^- y VERS U S 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : ^ The Secretary, School Education Department D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). 2. The Director, ^ Public Instructions State of Chhattisgarh Raipur, (C.G.). 3. The District Education Officer, Janjgeer-Champa, (C.G.). 4. Shri Ramnath Sahu, Upper Division Teacher, Government Higher Secondaiy School, Portha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgeer-Champa, (C.G.). ^ 5. Shri Rohitram Yadav, Upper Division Teacher, Government Higher Secondaiy School Portha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgeer-Champa, (C.G.). T -<^\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22f OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT .-L.^ IN THE^ NATU^E OF ^ANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIQN/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. //^.^.^ %„. ^A^ "^^^ a .y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr, Justsce Pritlnker Diwaker) W.P.No.1775 of 2004 Petitioner Kedarnath Rathore VERSUS Resppndents State of Chhattisgarh and others. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counse! for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, PL for the State. ORDER (25.07.2011) The grievance of the petitioner is that on 08.07.1969, the petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant and on 01.10.1985, the posts of Lab Assistants were abolished and atl the Lab Assistants were made Asstt. Teachers (Science). According to the petitioner on 17.05.2004, certain juniors to him were promoted as Upper Division Teachers whereas, the case of the petitioner has been ignored despite the fact that he was senior to respondents No.4 & 5 and similarty placed other persons. 2. Denying the contention of the petitioner, it has been put forth by the respondents No.1 to 3 that the respondents were promoted ahead of the petitioner being seniors to him as Asstt. Teachers and therefore, the respondents were justified in not promoting the petitioner on the post of Upper Division Teacher. 3. Shri Pandey submits that now the petitioner has retired, at this stage, he may be permitted to withdraw this petitlon with tiberty to t'ile a representation before the respondent No.3. However; the respondent No.3 be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. •^^ ^ '^ 4. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the petitioner makes any such representation and the same is decided in accordance with law. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. Priya 5. Needless to state that in the eventuatity of filing of any such representation by the petitioner, the same would be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge