c^'^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. JAM& OF 2010 PETITIONER ,^^)ff-:-'s^^ ^'•^:'^>^-- J:-:uC>'<\^-v''" . ^.--l,0<"l:\'^-A"y '"^:^>v-"" ys- . '^- RESPONDENTS Smt. Geeta Meshram, W/o Shri Om Prakash Meshram, Aged about 43 Years, Occupation- Service, Working as Peon, Office of Advocate General, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, R/o Talapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Advocate General, State of Chhattisgarh, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through: Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department, Pt. Dindayanl Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF IWANDAIUUS. CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS, PRDER/QRDERS^DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR THE LIKE -tC-22 SiI^I^i fe;iio-;3II^f SiHT^^i^fl 'S^! •^W\v\-if, WQfQ^S, WiWil 9iWShy^l^.^v^^ ts\-0 ••(p? 200 sn^i'gTaiWHfttT [SB: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Moh4 cause petitioner Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Shri Y. S. Thakur, D^ State/respondents. Heard. This petition has been fiied notice dated 06-04-2010 (Annexur^ required the petitioner to show cancelled. Learned counse! for the show cause nofice, the petitionei| (Annexure P-10). Learned counse! to file this petition arose on accouitit according to her, shows that the| decision in this matter. Learned Deputy Advocate subm'rts that no fina! decision has petltioner. Notice has been ssued proposed action, and by that notice], for proposed action. It is atso against show cause notice and the Taking into consideration against show cause notice as A|dvocate for the petitioner. 4puty Acivocate General for (>y fche petitioner assailing show cause P-1), by which, respondent No.2 has as to why her appointment be not •^T^^'I^w^ ^. 1t1^r <f-iR-$i< ^; 3rt;gt( SD^T n Shrivastava, •J.) submits that in response to said has fiied her reply on 09-04-2010 [or the petitioner submits that occasion of the contents of the notice, which respondent No.2 has already taken tt> Iso far been taken in the case of ttie the petitioner to show cause against (he authority has cUselosed the basis subn^stted that this petition is oniy directed ^ame is pre-mature. this petition has been flled only ]aiso taking into consideration the tlhat n? <A. "». J9 ^•.. '^•3^^'" '^^^if9 n•^ 'TSf ^fFITcTiT, »xll<-l<l<D, fs|cll<-l^< . ^,1^)^. 14^1^°^ "r" SiI^I TRq? (lpf^^E() •^- Tumane statement made at the bar bv the 1| the State/respondente that no fina! c| the respondents to take appropriate cbN^'fl'1 ^EFRlT ^f^^ •t^i^.K ^ajRnsii^r 'arned Deputv Advocate Gensra! for ecision in ttie matter has been taken. am not inciined to entertain this p^tition at this stage. !t wiil be open for decision in accordance with law, after due consideration of the reply submi|ted by the petitioner. !n view offoregoing, the petitit>n is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge