High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/197/2020allowed

Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyavsar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-02-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet MCC No. 197 of 2020 Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyavsar, S/o. Ramcharan Vyavsar, Aged About 32 Years, Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Government Primary School Ghadaghat, Block Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund Resident Of Village- Hathigad, Post- Sukhridabri, Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

6. Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents 26.02.2020 Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on Application for Modification/Correction in the Order dated 17.02.2020 passed in WPS No.1033 of 2020. It is contended that the address of respondent No.5 & 6 has wrongly been mentioned, which should have been as under : "Respondent No.5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Respondent No.6 - Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh"

Considering the nature of order as only direction have been passed to scrutinize the case of the petitioner and pass the suitable order, it is directed that respondents No. 5 & 6 be substituted as above.

Likewise, in para 2 of the order, it is directed that "let the petitioner make detailed representation to the respondent No.3 & 4 but now instead of respondent No.3 & 4, it should be corrected and read as respondent No.3 & 5. The rest of the order shall remain as it is.

In view of the above, the MCC stands allowed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge ashok