High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2342/2016dismissed

Smt. Vinodanee Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-11-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2342 of 2016

1. Smt. Vinodanee Yadav W/o Shri R.P. Yaddu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Shakshikunj, Kurmipara, Balod P.O. & P.S. Balod, District Chhattisgarh State Pin 491226

2. Ajay Kumar Gaikwad, S/o A.L. Gaikawad, Aged About 50 Years R/o Chhati Village & P.O. Dhamtari Tahsil & District Chhattisgarh State Pin 49363

3. Raj Kumar Ranade S/o Shri M.R. Ranade, Aged About 52 Years R/o Mudhusra Village Bhimkanhar Post Dondel Dhara Tahsil, Balod District Chhattisgarh State Pin 493663 ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Higher Educaiton Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Directoate Of Higher Education Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Chhattisgarh State,

3. Smt. Sarojini Kerketta, Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School Kannewada, Balod P.O. & P.S. Balod, District Chhattisgarh State 493633

4. Rajesh Kumar Harmukh, Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School, Khamaria, Durg, Durg District Chhattigarh State ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate.

For Respondents/State.

: Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/11/2016 Heard.

(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that against their non-promotion, they have made representation to the State Government/Competent Authority, which has not been considered and

disposed of till this dated and the return has also not been filed and, therefore, he may be permitted to file fresh representation before the competent authority and the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously. (2) Prayer appears to be fair & reasonable.

(3) Be that as it may, if the petitioners prefer representation before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances, it is expected to be decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law expeditiously. (4) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. (5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned is free to decide the representation in accordance with law on its own merits. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-