mm Kc ? C 6/? ?”'% BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (cg) w.P (S) N05,??? of 2010 PETITIONERs /:1. Ashok Kumar Manda], S/o Shri JR. Mandal, aged about 43 years, R/o Khongapani, Manendragarh, District-Koriya (C.G.) /2. Smt. Sushila Khalkho, W/o Mano] Khalkho, aged about 41'years‘ R/o Baikunthpur, District—Koriya (C.G.) Smt. Tara Nikunj, W/o YUgal Kumar Nikunj, aged about 36 years, R/o Village-Munjhar, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District-Koriya (C.G.) 3V VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through :f’its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) / 2. The Collector, Koriya, District—Koriya (C.G.) The Commissioner, Tribal welfare Department, Raipur, District—Raipur (C-G-) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Weifare, Koriya, District-Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. m ‘ 0?? HKEH COUR? OF CHHAT'HSGARH AT BILASPUR WRET ?E’§'ITIDN i$) NO. 583$ OF 23w Ashck Kumar Mandai & Others Petmumm Versus Rasgondenis State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT§ON OF lNDlA {SB : Hon’bie Mr. Satish Kg Agnihotti, J.) Present :- Shri Goutam Khetrapai, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Pane! Lawyer for the State/ respondents GRDER (ORAL) (Passed on 13th day of January, 201 1 ) Cha§ienge in this petition is to the Iegaiity and validity of the communication dated 4.9.2010 (Annexure P—1). whereby the Biock Education Officer; Baikunthpuri Sonhatl Khadgawa/ Bharatpun’ Manendragarh, District Ketiya (C.G.), has been directed by the Assistant Commissioner‘ Tribal Weiiare Department, Koriya, to invite applications for posting the interested teachers as Hostel Superintendent in different Hostei situated within the district. The sole contention of the petitioner is that posting of the teachers as Hostei Superintendent is contrary to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Adim Jatt‘ Anusuchit Jati Avam Pichhada Varg Kalyan Adhinastha Seva (Tritiya Varg Alipikiya) Bharti Niyam, 1994, (for short “the Niyam, 1994*), as the appointment on the post of Hostel Superintendent are by 100% direct recruitment, as prescribed in Scheduie ll under Ruie 6 of the Niyam, 1994. Thus, the qualification prescribed for posting in the documents annexed with 'the tetter are contrary to the provisions of law. (f7? 3. Learned counsei fey i‘ne petitioner further submits that for the iast severai years, no appointment through direct recruitment on the post of Hostel Superintendent are being made, but oniy by posting of the teachers who fumll the required quanfication, as stated in the Annexure to the impugned communication dated 4.9.2010. 4. Shri Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondente/ State submits that the Niyam. 1994, provides for recruitment of Hostei Superintendent by direct recruitment not by promotion, but the recruitment under the said Niyam,1994. are not appiioabie in the case on hand, as this is not the case of appintment of Hostel o Superintendent through proper selection under provisions of Rules. Since? the Hostel Superintendent couid not be appointed through proper selection process. the teachers, who are equat to Hostel Superintendent, are being osted for the time being. Since, the p responsibiiity of Hostel Superintendent involves commitments and sincerity, therefore, certain qualifications and experiences have een prided . ven for posting of the teachers as Hostel b ov e [\) Superintendents. 5. Having heard iearned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and docments appended thereto, it is evident that u the substantive ost of the petitioners s Upper Division Teaoher p i and they have been osted as Hostel Superintendent, Khongapani, p Baikunthpur and Pahadpara on 8.1.207, 20.11.2009 and 0 27.1 .2009 respeciveiy. t 6. ln View of the invitation of apiication pursuant to communication p dated 4.9.2010, their apiications are not bein considered for p’ g continuation as Hostel Supeintendent. Since, it is a case of r ‘\ 9% posiing of teachers not for appointment of Haste! Superiniendent. The subject matter is not appointment of the Hostei Superintendents through recruitment, thus, the provisions of the above stated Niyam, 1994 are not appiicabie. if the petitioners meet with the required qualification as prescribed in Annexure to the impugned communication, they may aiso be consideted atongwith others for fresh posting as Hostei Superintendent by virtue of there being posted earlier. if there ts no provision of grant of experience or continuation, no writ can be issued to the respondents to continue the petitioners as Hostel Superintendent contrary to the poiioy of the State Government. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. , ‘l Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok