← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/345/2018allowed

Smt. Lalita Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-05-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.C.C. No.345 of 2018 Smt. Lalita Jaiswal W/o Shri Vijendra Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years Caste Jaiswal, R/o Village Sell, Tahsil Kashdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Presently Working As Shikshakarmi Grade-Iii, (Assistant Teacher Panchayat) At Govt. Girls Primary School Sell, Tahsil Kashdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector Balodabazar, Civil and Revenue District BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balodabazar, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kashdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

5. The Block Education Officer Kashdol Civil and Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri UPS Sahu, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 08/05/2018

1. The present MCC has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 22.03.2018 passed in WPS No.2520 of 2018.

2. The modification sought for is to the extent that this court had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent No.2. In fact, the representation ought to have been made before the respondent No.3 and thus, prayed for said modification of the order to the extent that the petitioner be permitted to make representation to the respondent

No.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balodabazar instead of respondent No.2.

3. The prayer is not opposed by the State counsel.

4. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The petitioner would be at liberty to make representation to the respondent No.3 instead of respondent No.2. On such representation being made, the respondent No.3 shall decide the same by a reasoned order.

5. A copy of this order be made part of the records of the WPS No.2525 of 2018.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder