Sjji.gj^ ^ - f . (00 ^ ^ 5" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIQNER <.J^ »'.< j^p^- ^'^^' ^^^ e» RESPONDENTS WP(S) N0~:^43/2011 ^ Priyanka Gupta, aged about 27 years, W/o Dr. Sudip Gupta , R/o Bilaspur Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently working as Shiksha Karmi Grade 3 at Primary School Mangala Bock- Bilha,, Dist- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh VERSUS ^\. The State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development DKS Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh. ^2. Collector, Dist- Biaspur C.G. ^-3. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ^4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ^6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gaurell, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ^6. Block Education Officer, Block- Bilha Dist- Bilaspur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITENKER DIWAKBR W.P.rSLNO. 7763/2011 PETITIONER Priyanka Gupta versus RESPONDENTs State of Chhattisgarh 8s Others Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P,L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 Or THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 18J1.2011 passed by the respondent N0.3 whereby the attachment order of the petitioner has been cancelled and she has been directed to join at Gourella, District Bilaspur. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a handicapped lady asid it is difficult for her to carryout the order impugned. He submits that though the petitioner has no legal or vested right but her case definitely requires sympathetic consideration looking to her physical condition and therefore direction may be issued to the respondent N0.3 for considering the representafcion of the petitioner. State counsel points out that till dafce the petidoner has not made any representation and therefore it is difficiilt for the competent authority to decide the same. Be that as it may, in the eventuality of filing any such representation by the petitioiier before respondent N0.3 it is expected from the said authority to decide the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictlyin accordance with law. . i- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge