HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No.39 of 2010 l Anneuant Sahasram Vare, S/o Shri Hansulai, Petitioner in writ aged about 44 years, Caste-Gond petition (SCT), Resident of Village Sachara Tola, (Khalotaya Toia), P,O. Raioya, Tahsii — Pendra Road,' Biiaspur, District— Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh (now (in writ petition) Chhattisgarh), through the Secretary, School Education Vailabh Bhawan, Bhopai (MP). (Now D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C,G.). Deputy Director, Education District Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Block Education Officer, Block ManNahi, Tahsii — Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Smt. Madhu “Namdeo, W/o Tarun Namdeo, aged about 29 years, R/o Viiiage Kumhari, P.O. Matwahi, Tahsii — Pendra Road, District- . Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Writ Appeal under Section 2 Sub-Section (1)0f the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2007. Present : Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the appellant Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additionai Advocate Genera! for the State! respondents No.1 to 3. Judgment (13m February, 2010) t The foiiowing judgment of the Court was passed by I Rajeev Gupta, C.J. @ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on l.A.No.O1/2D10, an app!ication for condonation of the delay in frlihg the writ appeal. 2) Oh due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the writ appeal. 3) l.A.No.01/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant - Sahasram Valre has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 13.11200Q, passed in W.PAS.NO.1279/2005. 6) The appellant/ petitioner in his writ petition was seeking quashing of the order dated 28.08.1993, so far as it related to the appointment of respondent No.4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo, as cw Assistant Teacher and a further direction to respondents No.1,2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. 7) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and considering that respondent No.4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo was appointed long back in the year 1993, declined to grant any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. 8) Shri Sandeep Dubey, teamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the teamed Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appetlant’s writ petition though the appointment of @ respondent No.4 Smt. Madhu Némdeo, on the post of Assistant Teacher was in breach of the guide—lines in the matter. 9) Respondent No.4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo was appointed as Assistant Teacher at fixed remuneration of Rs.500/— per month under specific scheme referred to in Annexure-A/2, for a lirnited period. Her appointment order further provided that after oompietion of three years successful service, she would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher after passing BTI course on her own expenses. 10) The sole ground pressed into service by the appellant before us in this appeal and in the writ petition for challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo was that she did not belong to the village where she was appointed. 11) Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was nobody’s case that respondent No.4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo did not possess the essential educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher. Even assuming that she did not belong to the village where she was appointed, that by itself will not render her appointment illegal. 12) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this intra Court appeal. 13) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilyh f Sd/_ SUN'IL KUMAR sml-IA Sd/‘ i Judge Chief Justice , . . r. ”gr? t , , . r