w HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR &IVISIONBENCT CORAM: HON'BI..ESHRIJA6t>ISHBHALLA, Ag. C3. & HON'BLE SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB &ESMMU;H, J APPELLANT PETTTION W-it ABoeai ff.R.) No. 5847 of 2007 |^A-^2/07 Ashiam Khcn, 5/o late Faiysz an, age-49 years, R/o Police line, Tahsil- Dist. Bilospur(C.6.). \ VBiSUS ;Y RESPON&B'n'S : 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Persbnnel and Training, 6ovt. ofIndia.New Delhi. 2. Director", Depar'tment of Persohnei and Tr'aining, 6ovt, of India, New Delhi. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secf^ary, bepartinent ofHome, DKS Bhawan,Raipur (C&). 4. 51'ate of MP, Through Secpetary, Oepartmentof Home, Vallabh Bhawan, : Bhopal, . 5. Secpetary, Stafe Reor^anization .Cel!, Depar'tmen'f of fieneral AdiTiinistratjon, <5ovt. of MP, Vallcbh Bh<wdn,Bhopal,MP. I 6. ^ Director of Publjc Instruction.lMP. Sautanl Ncgar, Bhopal. 7. Director of Public Instructtion, ChhattiS9ai^'; Pension Bada.Raipi.ir, C6. " • ' :! :: ;; ; . ' ^B. Supermtendent of Police, bistt. Bitepur,C6. WrIt.ABBea!-y!'!der_Section 2(1) of Hiqh Cour-t of Chhdttisaar'h (ADoeGl to DivisianiBench) Act,2006. Preserit: Shri Ravish Verma,counsel for the dppellcnt.i Shri S.K. Beriisal, Counsel for Union of India, ojN edvahce^'Copy.;,:; .. • , . ,;: • .::' i,-': Shri 6.D. Waswahi; Spverrinteht Advocate fotf •t+)e Sfate,on;advanceisopy^ '' ,. : l' . 1 The fol OR4L ju&SMa'rr (Passed m 14th Septeinber, 2007) orai Judgment of the Court wcs passed by ,Ag.CT. Heard. This appeal orises out of theorder passed by the tearned Single Judge, dated 27.06.2007 in^y.P.(S). No.3599/2007, wherein the writ pstition wos dismissed in limine. Shri Rtn'ish Verma, leomed counsel for the iappeiiant/petitiqner submits that he had in fact raised number of grouncis in the writ petition. However, wefindthotonly 9round which wasargued before ths Searned Single Judge was that the pe+itioner is o permonent resident of District Ujjain, State of Modhya PradeA and thersfore, he should wt have been allocated to the State of Chhattisgar'h. Now, the appeilont/petitioriep wants to -fife dreview petitiori. . Accordingly, we do not find ary ground to show inter'ference. However, it is made ciear that the decision in this appeal wi!) notcome iri the way of the cppeiiant/pstitioner to file Q review petition. In fight of the above, the writ apped staricls disposed of. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice Sd/- ChiefJustice •X" VM i :A:\ i.