1 CGHC010031512026 2026:CGHC:27717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 39 of 2026 1 - Fulkumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Purushottam Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Presently Working At Government Primary School - Parsabhantha, Block- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner President Of Rationalization, Committee, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director / Secretary Divisional Rationalization Committee Education Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector/president Of District Rationalization Committee, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer/secretary Of District Rationalization Committee, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/president Of Rationalization Committee, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 7 - The Block Education Officer/secretary Of Rationalization Committee Block- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 8 - The Block Education Officer/secretary Of Rationalization Committee Block- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 9 - Premlal Jaiswal Occupation- Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Presently Working At Government Primary School - Pahanda, Block- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. The matter was initially heard on 18.02.2026. During the course of hearing, this Court put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what provision and in which contingency the present Review Petition was maintainable. Upon such query being raised, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to address the issue. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 03.03.2026, when learned counsel for the petitioner once again prayed for further time to satisfy the query raised by this Court. On the subsequent date of hearing, i.e., 06.04.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the matter be listed on 07.05.2026 and subsequently, the matter came to be listed today, i.e., 06.07.2026. 3 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities over a considerable period to address the maintainability of the Review Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of answering the query raised by this Court, prayed for permission to withdraw the present Review Petition. 3. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for withdrawal of the present Review Petition is allowed and the Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Saxena