c^ \^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) NO.it^0'' /2011. PETITIONER: Respondents 0->^ .^y ?.-\'/-"' ^' "'!W^y ."^y <• .•y i,;.'* ^ '' Hoshlal Nayak, son of Heniprasad Nayak, aged about 52 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Khokra, West F'ussour, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ,1. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /-2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. /3. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhatdsgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^MM/^ ^>-<^i fs/' \'^ ,(SX K*<U^f ^^.-.^ :t^»Tkt< 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERfSl: As mentioned in the Cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT(S): As mentioned in the Cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE. SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF. HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR !T PETiTION (S) N0. 1706 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate Genera! for the State. ORDER (ORAL'; (Passed on this 30th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner does not want to contest this petition on merits at this stage, and prays for withdrawa! of this petition with liberty to make a representation in the light of the circular dated 5.1.2011. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that if a representation is made, the same shai! be considered and declded within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, in the light of the above stated circular. 4. In view of foregoing, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above-stated liberty. It is expected that the concerned authorities would consider and decide the representation, if any, as above, within a perlod of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy ofthisorder. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok