^— - ^ ^'v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH 03 WRIT PETITIOJS N0. J ^ ^- ^- /2005 PETITIONER Narendra Singh Bais, s/o. Shri Birendra Singh Bais, aged about 46 years, R/o. Village - Dasrangpur, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus <; RESPONDENTS ^ f /( <^;' 1) State ofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.). 2) Director of Public Instructions, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Directorate of Public Instructions, (DPI Office) Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Education Department, Education District Bilaspur, (C.G.). ^ WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 3T1^T^T {^Tt^3:n^T rf?cT Sh^lcbe ^i^<ii ^urei ^ST -qiqicn^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fadl^y 3ll^l M?|ch na- ..^} :K\! .^S.^ 18 200^ W^TS^TT^TCfN' non^r do|Iy 26.4.2005 Mr. Alok Nigam/ counsel Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Heard both the counsel. The case of the petition^t erstwhile State of M-P. Assistant Teachers in the Goyei petitioner was selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis on the services of the petitioner vacancy which arose on accourjit services was fijjed by the Sta^ regubriy making representaj appointment cn the post of that in the year 1997 the er^t^ appoint ad-hoc teachers in plac| implemented by the State of Learned counsel for the ailowed to make a represent^ti 9rievances and respondent representation, to which State/respondents has no obje^l f|^r the petitioner. 4awyer for 1+ie State/respondente. cbl^^^1vl ^l^KrlT^f^tiRl^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T is that the Education Department of con^ucted a test for the appointment of ^nment Primary Schools. In that test the Ivide order dated 14-08-1981 he was wages of Rs.6.50 per c^a-y. However, ^ere discontinued on 15-12-1981 and the of discontinuation of the petitioner's |e of M.P. Thereafter, the petitioner is 'ions for considering his case for te<{icher. Further case of the petitioner is ^twhile State of M.P. took a decision to of Shiksha Kar'mi but same is not being Cl^hattisgarh, tietitioner submits that petitioner may be tion to respondent No.2 raising ail his No.2 be directed to decide his learned Panel Lawyer for the ^tion. r— XI-HC-22 3^T ^l^l^^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fc<€rll^^< .^T^.^ Rl^ 19 ^I^C^II ^W^ 200 5^ ^TT^T^T {^ri^3^T $h^icb^Tf?cT \ ?ma ^ ,^ sn^T^rT^R^r -^-+ Having heand iearned coi|nsel to the facts and circumstances make a representation within respondent No.2 raising al! his directed to decide the represetitati months from the date of receiptjof a!l the grievances raised by the p^- With the direction aforesciid Consequently, I.A.Nos.^ disposed of. Gertified copy as per ru\es\ for the parties and having regard c|f the case, the petitioner is allowed to period of ten days from today to gr|ievances and in turn respondent No.2 is presetitation of tbe petitioner within three the representation after considering p^titioner, in accordance with law* I, thc petition stands disposed of. i.30135/2005 <& 3036/2005 also stand :eipt|of Gbl^f^1^1T1 ^l^^tT^te^tiRi^K ^3ri^T3n^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^f^)