Authorities must consider petitioner's representation on raised grounds in accordance with law, preferably within four months.

The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator posted in the office of the Block Education Officer, Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, approached the Chhattisgarh High Court by way of a writ petition against the State authorities and education officials.

During the hearing, both parties submitted that the petition involved facts and issues similar to those considered in WPS No. 5158 of 2026, which had followed the order dated 13 February 2026 in WPS No. 13917 of 2025, Vinod Kumar Markam & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others .

In the earlier matter, the Court had permitted the petitioners to submit a representation to the competent authorities raising all grounds urged in the writ petition and directed the authorities to decide it in accordance with law, preferably within four months of receipt.

The Court applied the principle of judicial consistency and parity, holding that a writ petition involving facts and issues identical or substantially similar to those already adjudicated may be disposed of in terms of the earlier order.

It relied on the directions issued in WPS No. 13917 of 2025, Vinod Kumar Markam & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , whereby the petitioners were permitted to submit a representation raising all grounds urged in the writ petition and the authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to in that earlier order, preferably within four months of receipt.

No specific statutory provision or Supreme Court precedent is identified in the present order.

The Court accepted the joint submission of the parties that the present petition was similar to the earlier matters.

Since the legal and factual issues had already been dealt with in WPS No. 13917 of 2025 and the subsequent order in WPS No. 5158 of 2026, the Court considered it appropriate to follow the same course rather than undertake a fresh adjudication on the merits.

Accordingly, the petitioner was granted the same procedural remedy of making a comprehensive representation to the competent authorities, who were required to examine it in accordance with law.

The petitioner may submit a representation to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raising all grounds urged in the writ petition, and the authorities are to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, preferably within four months from its receipt.

No independent relief was granted on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.