^ "3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) NQ. 5:/^_^- /2009 PETITIONER RESPQNDj;NTS: / ,^T .^^^ :/: t*< C-f^ \'.-'' ^n^^> 2) Ramdev Rathore, S/o Raghunath Prasad Rathore, aged about 45 years, R/o Govt. High School Colony, Kotba, Patfhalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) ' State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ^ The Deputy Secretary, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, - Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ^ Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3) 4) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) ^ 5) Bholanath Ajagale, Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Udaipur, District Surguja (C.G.) i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: -r^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^PUR PETITIONER ^WRIT PETmQN_fS) No, 5122 of2009 Ramdev Rathore. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisearh & Others. WMT PE'nriON LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'THE CONSTITOTION Of LNDL4. SB: Hon'Me Shri SatishK. Asnihotn, J. Present: Shri R.Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashaak Thakur, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. Shri Anil Mourya, Advocate forthe respondent No. 5. 3. - (Passed on 29th day ofAugust, 2011) Leamed counsel appearmg tbr the State/respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner has already contmued at the original place ofposting for almost two years on aecount ofmterim order aranted bv this Court on 09.09.2009. The State/respondent No. 1 to 4 may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public mterest and admiaistrative exieencv. Shri Thakur farther submits that the State/respondent No. 1 to 4 shall not insist upon campliance of the impugied order dated 03.06.2009 (Amiexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner. At this stage, when no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/l) on account ofthe interim order dated 09.09.2009. thus. it is not necessarv to go into legalitv and validity ofthe aforestated impugned order. In view of the above, according to leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition fbr adjudication. Accordinaly, the petition staads disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge