^ ^ ^.\^/- <. ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHH^ATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. CIVIL CASE N05^ OF 2009 APPLICANT/ PETITIONER ^ ^:^,^ o' Chetan Kumar Mahilane, S/o Sri Mahadeo Mahilane, aged about ^r55years, Occupation " - Service, presently posted as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Rengle, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur (Chhattigsarh) ^•';.1.'.. VER S U S NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy, Department of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Cornmissioner,Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development,Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. 4. 5. Collector Jashpur (Tribal Welfare), (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION FOR Assistant Commissioner, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) Block Education Officer Block Bagicha, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) '£OFORDERDATED 30/7/2009 1'ASSED IN WPS N0.3976/2009 (CHETAN KUMAR MAHILANE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & 4 OTHERS) ANe-MODfl^WATION OF ORDER-WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTION. ^ ^ •3~^r ^NI^, ^Ti1^4i<o, "N^rray c ^^ ^iTR^ITSbNlsn ^200°) ^^t^ (^Is^O 3^^!tWF •^n^it^^Ri^ t^», iwiw^f^r^w SB: Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Dh^aker 12-08-2009 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, couns^l for the applicant. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the r^spondent/State. The present application has modification of order dated 30-07-20Q9 same reads as under:- UAt the out set oounsel 1\ he wants to withdraw ffjis ctete/ted representation to res^ grievance of the petitioner agd submits that as the petitioner wouA/ be difficult for him to a and therefore he prays for a for early disposaf of the repre^ntation of the petitioner. this request of ffTe counsel for^ie petittoner, hasno objection. Accordingly, ttie peffSor^ with liberty as aforesakl. In c^se ff/ed by the peWoner, respofydent decfcfe the same wittisn a penTpd date ofits receipt.in accordandp with law". Contention of learned counsel f<>r of the petitioner being Upper Division and in some other matters where the petitioners, this Court has granted inljerim petitioners. ^F?fe^ <^ ^ff '8? "fe^ ^N^K ^wfiwsn^i been filed by the applicant for passed in Annexure A/2 and the fpr the petitioner submits that jGJefr'ffo/? vwtti liberty make a (pondent No. 1 raisng all the orcfer impugned. He \has numerous probtems, it ^ny out ttie o/cter impugned {ff/ecfen to fespWKtent No.1 To State counsel is dismiswd as wifffdmwn of representatwv being No.1 is expected to of three weeks from (fte f^r the applicant is that the seniority {Teacher is maintained district wise s^id point has been raised by those protection in favour of those W^t^^^ ^K^^<M-!i^M—FS/95—11/2008—1,09,000. --^- ^' ,;.^§.. '^ ^' M ~r :Y ^i-^KS; %'^^ '^Sv^' "5^ ^qt^i^^, 'S^Jl^le, fa<rlW^< ,n^±^...^^..........^ 'WRIT^^I gn^?T 1tra^ (i?^^) ^^r^i^te ^i •^i^^ti^ ^. Y-. 1'^STW^tt^^^ -^-- Shri Ashish Shrivastava fairl^ petition is concerned, no such pointw^ On the other hand, State coun4< and submits that once the petitione| order dtd. 30-07-2009, he has no rig|ht said order. 1 have heard learned coun^< Admittedly, the point which hasj in respect of the seniority of the petiticjner petition and further theorder dtd. 30-P7- on the request of the petitioner, 1 find therefore, the present application as ^•qf^^l^^f ^f -^^ xf^^K ^a^CTan^t submits that so far as the writ s raised by the petitioner. el opposes the present application has withdrawn the petition vide to seek any modification in the iel for the petitioner. now been raised by the petitioner had not been raised in the writ P7-2009 was passed by this Court 10 ground to modily the said order, by the petitioner, is rejected. fifed Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^r^^f^^r ^"K^ <i^i41r(i<r— FS/95—11/2008—1,00»000*