Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37616 (CHH)

MAHESH KUMAR NIRMALKER v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/8979/2025 · 2025-09-03

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:45283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8979 of 2025 1 - Mahesh Kumar Nirmalker S/o Late Punit Ram Nirmalker Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Sonsari, Block Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Secretary And District Education Officer District Level Rationalization Committee Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.04 19:18:56 +0530 2 04/09/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after passing of the order dated 26.06.2025 by the District Level Rationalization Committee (Annexure P/2), the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee, which has been decided subsequently and therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to take recourse to law against the order passed by the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee. 2. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the State counsel. 3. On the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving the aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved