g EN THE HIGH COURT 05‘ "JHHE’ETISGARH JUBICA“URE‘ AT BILASPUR Writ Petitian gx‘g. oéll7 mil 5 f PETITxaNEg : Smt. Raina Bo3e may) Wife of shri ‘9radeep Kumar Day, Assistant Teacher (terminatec'i), Vivekananc1 shishu Mandir. Maaa Camp, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versua REspomngNxg : (1) Mana Shikghan $amiti, Vivekanand $hishu Mandir, Thraugh - Shri Devenc‘lra Pxatap Singh (Pressitient), Diana 3hikshan gami‘d. Mama Camp, Tawn Tehsil and District Raimr (Chhatti sgarh) . (2) Indrajeet Das . Ex—Pre ssident , Vivekanand Shishu wenciir, Mama Shilshan 3amm, Mama Camp, Tavm Teh$il and District, Raipur {Chhattisgarh}. (3) Pracieep i”andey , Deputy Pre$ident , Vévekanand Shishu Mandir. Mama Shikshau Samiti, Mana il‘am‘p. Tawn, 'I‘ehsil Sc Digtrict Raipur (C.G.) (4) Dh arm’s iay Th akur . Secretary, Vivekanand 3hishu Mandir. Marla $hikshan $amiti. Mana Camp, Tova, Te‘rmi]. &: District Raipur (C.G.) N . “A. (5) Shravan Kumar Sinha, Tresulwr, Vivekanand 3histm Man‘dir, Mama Shikshan Samiti, Mama Camp, Town, Tehsil 5c District Raipur (C.G.). C6) Gangadhar Bamie, Menber, Vivekananci Shishu Mandir, Mana Shikshan Samiti. Mama Camp. Town, 'l'ehsil & District Raignr (C.G.). (7) Kma yrasaca iaatre, a Member , Vivekan and Sh i shu Mamiir , Mana Sh iksha 55amiti , Mana Camp, Town, Teh sil & District Raigdur (C.G.) . {8) Bachcoo Das . h Member Vvekanand S’nishu Mandir,' , i ana ikshaii Samiti, Maria Clamp. M Sh Town, Tsil c District Raimr (C.G.). eh 5 (9) Smt. Kavi sani, ta Memberg Vvekanand Shishu Mand ir; Hana Shikshan £3amiti. Mama Camp, Town. Tesil District Raigur (C.G.)‘ h & (10 K.L.§arihar,, ) Member Vivanand Shishu Mandir, , ek Mama Shiks an $amiti , Man a Camp , h Town, ‘Tesil & District Raigur (C.G.). h (1i) smt. Smti Kana Biswas, Memer , Viveknand a ishu Manéir , M f \ b a ama Shikshan iamiti, Mana Camp, Tom, amil & District Raigur (c.G.) n i ri T ? T :i’ :z 03 :: (12) 3mt. Archana $andey, Nmmf Heai Mistress, Vivekanaad 3hishu Mandir, Mane. Shikshan Samiti. Mama Camp. Tam, Tehssil & District Raip‘lr (C.G.). (13) Lakshi Kant Gupta” Teaéher , Vivekanand Shi shu Mandi]: . Marla cmp, Tcwn Tehsil & District Raipur (Chh attisgarh) . ‘IWLIT FETI TIQN UNDER AR'I‘l’CLE 22§y227£0F THE CCFISTITUTION OF IMJIA; _ Rfnghg . 1 Warfm , , Shrl Sachm Smgh Rajput, Coumsel for the petmoner ‘ Shrl V V S Murthy, learned D puty Advocate General for the State Apphcauon for urgent hearmg ' allowed " Heal d cles 226/227 oti theConstitutionof order dated 29 4—2004 passed in Mtsc C1v1l Appeal No 61/2003 by 1e Fourth Add1t10nal Dlstnct Judge Rd1pur whereby the appeal filed by th ' petltmner has been d1sm1ssed i Facts 1n bnef of the case are t at the pet1t1oner was workmg as an Aslslstant Teacher 1n the School of res ondent No 1 It 1s stated that on the oceas10n of her mamage she had‘ taken leave h’om 26 11-2001 to 191 12-2001 It 1s fhrther stated thatt ereaiter she could not be able to Jom herl dunes 1n the School but on 20 l 002 she made an appl1cat1on before V respondent No 2 to extend her leave as shez was adv1sed for bed‘rest and alsb requested that whenever she wo 1d joih her duties§she would submit ‘the medical certificate The sa1d ap heation was rejected by respondent No 2 It 1s also submitted that Vide r dated 7-6-2002 respondent no 2 terminated the serv1ces of the pet t1oner w1thout glvmg her proper opportunity of heanng It 1s submitte that the pet1t10ner filed an appeal before respondent No 2 on 17-6-2002 hrch was also rejected l t By tlns petltlon tiled under Indla, the petmoner has challenge 9 fphcation under Order 39 Rule l an 2 read With Section 151 ofthe Code It ts contended that thereaher e petltloner filed a su1t alongw1th an ’i e d e t i g t 3 l g . , mm. LAJat gamer l i e f a 5 , mmawm m3gjlég g x _~ : §FWW g g f 27-3.2004 I XIHC 22 mmvfa i , gr Sf Civil Procedure for temporary inju trial Court rejected the said applicatii contended that aggrieved by the order an appeal before the Fourth Addition: 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Proc Vlde the'impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitior bad in law 1, On the other hand, learned codnsel for the State supported the orders ofthe courts below J, Havrng consldered the facts niaterial available on record, both th l facie no case for gant of interiin inju P also considered the matter and is of irirvoking the extraordinary jurisd Constitution of India. At this stage, learned coun‘sel justice would be met if a direction rs matter at the earliest. Prayer appears to be reasonabl: Court as early as possible preferably receipt/production of this order sub ect to co-operation of the parties; I l notion. It is further contended that the an for temporary injunction. It is also of the trial Court, the petitioner filed t1 District Judge, Raipur, undefOrder‘ adure, which has also been dismissed. t rer submitted that initially the order is? ; and Circumstances of the case and: r Courts below have held that puma; ctron has been made out. Thrs Court; e‘view that no case is made out fori l ctioni under Article 227 of thel l for the petltloner prayed that ends of given to the trial Court to decrde the ‘ _ ‘ . Let the suit be deCided by the trialv Within four months from the date of [tileW eqn‘.;.192004 also stan il pe rus L' ConsuetlyMW_P.No32/ ds "’ \ C’extfed copy as r le. Cdpytoihe f