— c - £.\^Q\ GLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT BILASPUR CHHAmSGARH '^ WRIT PETITION N0. ! S 73 ^2005 PETITIONER ^ Versus Jawahar Lal Sahu, Son of Shri Pachakona Sahu, aged about 52 years, R/o. Village - Telaibhata, Maheli, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS 1.^ ,...^&J ^^ 't^"" \9.<'TS^"J^ ^^^^ >^. •^m^. ^ 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, C^ 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 ^TT^TW f^TWW^T T^^f?cT $h*TT^)^ 3^T ^l^ld^, ^Tfi<1^I(o, ?G)^||^^< 3n^T^T^5F ^6) *<IN€<11 »»*4|Ch f^re^' 200 W^T 5^<TTW ^rf^cT 26.4.2005 Mr. Alok Ni9am/ counsel Mr. Bhoskor Pyasi, Panel Heard both the counsel. The case of the petitiorj erstwhile State of M.P. conc Asslstant Teachers in the &ove| petitioner was selected ond vid| on ad-hoc basis on daiiy wages of the petitioner were discontii) arose on dccount of discontinual by the State of M.P. representations for considerin< teacher. Further case of the| erstwhile State of M.P. took place of Shiksha Karmi but of Chhattisgarh. Learned counse! for 1+ie allowed to make a represent^ grievances and respondent representation, to which l^c respondents has no objection. There4ft sawe cr)Nl^l4lT1 ^HQlT^'te^l'iRl^K ^3lf^T3n^rT ^or the petitioner. ^awyer for the State/respondents. ^er is that the Education Department of |ucted a test for the appointment of I'nment Primary Schools. In that test the ^ order dated 5-9-1981 he was appointed ?f Rs.6.50 per day. However, the services lued on 15-12-1981 and the vacancy which t-ion of the petjtioner's services was fiiled ^fter/the petitioner is reguiarly making his case for appointment on the post of petitionerjs that in the year 1997 the decision to appoint ad-hoc teachers in ^e is not being imptemented by the State ?etitioner submits that petitioner may be tion to respondent No.2 raising al! his No,2 be directed to decide his irned Panel Lawyer for the State/ XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T f^f^3TI^T aw^^cT ^. Sor^Q ^l^^f^Hlch 3^T r<<l<1lct<1, <9Tl1t1<l(o, {®l<y11^^< 311^1 ^sich f^[' 3T^?T 5^<TT^TT ^f^T -s.' to the facts and circumstancesl make a representation within| respondent No.2 raising all his ^ chNfd^-l HI<4ClT^'te^t'<Rl^K ^^rf^T3T1^T Having heard ieGrned c^unsel for the parties and havin9 regard directed to decide the repre^ntation of the petitioner within three months from the date of receip| al! the grievances raised by the| With the direction aforej of the case, the petitioner is ailowed to a period of ten days from today to rieyances and in turn respondent No.2 is [t of the representation afterconsidering Ipetitioner, in accordance with hw. |aid, the petition stands disposed of. Consequentiy, I.A.Nos.3p54/2005 <& 3055/2005 atso stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rul^s. L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^y^) ^ ^ ^