•iwr ET-RTTNT 'ch^[<vl<l1l ^i^rlf'^f^c^
1+^.R ^arwHfei w^i ^?3Tf'ni3IT^ SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 14-09-2012 Shri Subhash Yadav, cc|unsel forthe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Governnjient Advocate for the State, on advanee copy. Though this case was lifcted on default, leamed counsel for the parties jolntiy submit that the issue [invoived in the case was subject matter of ideniical petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 4599/11 which has been disposed of vide orderdated 12/08/11. Accordingly, foliowing o der is passed. Heard on admission. Learned counsel for trte petltioner submits that the petitioner was aliowed to participate in the ^rmorer Condense Course, but his resuit has not been deciared and iater ^n, though others have been sent ror training, ihe petitioner has not been se|it for further training. He submits that some of the persons who are similarly situated and who have participated in the same training course along w)th the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.3925/08 anjj after considering the reply flled in that case, this Court issued direction t^ send those constable for Armorer Training course and also to constder trt<eir cases by granting weightage or preference to the petitioners therein. Leat•ned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is identical a^ he was also subjected to training in the same training course as the petitior^ers in W.P.(S) No.3925/08 and therefore, the petitioner herein is aiso entitl^d to similar treatment as directed by ihis Court inthatcase. '
