1 2025:CGHC:17420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1941 of 2022 1 - Jai Maa Kali Sakhi Saheli Swa- Sahayata Samuh Sothi , (Parsapali) , Block Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through Its President Smt. Sushila Bai , Wife Of Lokesh Chandrakar , Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Sothi, Police Station Seepat , Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education , Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya , Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Ofifcer (Revenue) Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer (Masturi), District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Head Master Government Middle School Sothi, Police Station Seepat Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Intervenor : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.17 13:42:33 +0530 2 Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent/s as well as Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the Intervenor. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has raised objection regarding the maintainability of this petition stating that the petitioner has to approach before the concerned Collector as per Circular No. F-17-50/2021/20-1, Raipur dated 07.08.2012 issued by the State Government. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to approach before the concerned authority and the authority concerned may be directed to decide his application/representation within a short period. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State appearing on advance notice submits that subject to due verification and scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner, appropriate steps shall be taken at the earliest within a period of 60 days. 5. Given the statement made by the counsel for the respondent- State, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and 3 decide the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of production of the copy of this order. 6. Interim relief granted earlier shall be continue till filing of the application/representation. The petitioner is directed to file another application for grant of interim relief. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi