JL. •I IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6) W.P. (S) N0. "7 ^^2_ /2011 PETITIONER >v'" ^ \\ l/->"\.-"".."" >»p L^'^ Kanhaiyalal Palia, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri Mallu Ram Palia, Retired Head Master, Government Middle Shcool, Tarda, ^-)^^xl ^^'' \\^^ " Block Kartala, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ^F^ ^^ ^^1. ^' -\ RESPONbENTS /y'.^^y"§^% y VERSUS :1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.&.) The Commissioner Public Instructions, Raipur (C.G.) Joint Oirector, Treasury, Account <& Pension, Bilaspur, bistrict Bilaspur (C.6.) bistrict Education Officer, Korba (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Kartala, bistrict Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDE^ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA L^ ,^x COURT OP CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR SB : HON?BLE MR. JUSTICB PmTINKER DIWAKER PETITIONBR RBBPONDBNTs W.P4S1.NO. 7742/2011 Kaahaiyalal Palia versus State of Chli.attisgai-h 85 Others Shri K.S.Pawar, coiinsel for the petitioBer. Slui Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WmTPBTITION UNDER,ARTICLE_226 OP THE CONSTITUTIOjj OF IHDIA ORDBR 116.12.2011) Case of the petitioner is tho.t he ought to have been promoted on the post of Lecturer on 27,9.08 when his junior was pronioted but tlie case of the petitioner was not considered by tlie corapetent autiioritv. Coiinsel for the petitioner subiiiits that flie pzirpose of fQh^ tbis petition would be ser^ed if direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to decide his pendin.g representation (Annexure P/5). State counsel subniits fhat let tlie petitioner file a fresli detailed representation along wifti copy of this order before tlie respoDdent N0.2 and io. tuni fhe same would be decided by the authority concenied iii accordaiice witii law subject to the eMgibility of thie petiUoner. Accordiagly, tlie petitioner is disposed of. Needless to state that iii tlie eventuaMty of Biakiag any fresh representation by tlie petitioner the same would be dealt with iii accordaace with law as expeditiously as possible. It is raade clear that fhis court has not expressed any oprriion on tiie inerits of the case aad the aiitliority concemed would be at Iibert5r to decide the representation strictly m accordarsce witii law. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge