G^2- ^' © IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.IS.) N0. \\ /2010 PETITIONERS: ^ <"! \ ^, A^ ^y ^y 1) Deendayal Dansena S/o Shri Gopi Rara Dansena, Aged about 59 years, Upper Division Teacher, Goveninient Middle School, Bade Kot, Block Malkharoda, Distriet Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2) ^ Banshi Lal Khunte S/o Shri Rameshwar Khunte, Aged about 57 years, Head Master, Govemment Primary School, Basin, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3) 4) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. Jagdish Prasad Shukla S/o Shri Amar Prasad Shukla, aged about 59 years, Head Master Prunary School Dongardih, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Motilal Gabel S/o Shri Amar Singh Gabel, Aged about 57 years, Head Master Government Primary School Bade Padarmuda, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) c^ <9 G) 2. The District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) </" 3. The Block Education Officer, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OP LIKEJiATUREETC. -•—-^—U—l^^_ka- h»r HIGH COURT.OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR « WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1 118 of 2010 PETITIONER : Deendayal Dansena & Othere. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgsu-h & Ott»rs. WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF INDSA SB: Hon'Ue Slm Safeh K. ^inUwBi. J. Present: Shri D.RPatel, Advoeate for ttie petittoner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Aimt ORALORDER (Passed on 17"' day of March, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petittoner, on uistruetiore, subnruts that the peUtloner does not want to contest ths pefition on mwlte at this stage. However, he prays that the petittoner may.be permittBd to make a representation to the respondent auttiortUes, and in tum, the respondent authonties may be directed tocor»ldeitanct ctecide his representation as expeditiousty as possible in light of the ^idgrrrent dated 01.09.2006 passed by this Court In Amar Sai Ram & Ottiors v. Stato ofChhaWsgarh & Ottws (W.P. (S) No. 4725 ef2006). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for Uie Stete/respondenls submte that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same shaU be consldered and decided in light of the judgment amt order passed in AmarSaiRam (supra) as expeditiously as pMslble, preferably wMiin a period of eight weeks from the date of recelpt of the representaton. 3. In view of the foregoing, accordtng to teamed aainsel api»aringfor the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication at Uiis stage. 4. Accordingly,thewritpetitlonisdispo^d<yf ] Sd/- ' I Satish K. Agnihotri ^ Judge