<! ^ \ry-y^_^ 5' S.B. (Service Matt^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH <;OURT OF CHHAT'HSGARH A3" BILftSPUR(CHHATnSGARH) WRTT PETmONtS) N0. "Syi/f /20<ie. PETITIONER: ResDondente // KanhaiyaLal Sahu, son of Murlunoriahar Salui, aged^about42 years, •workingasAssistantGrade-3 (dail^'WagerElnployee)Gpvt. Industnal Trainmg Center, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Versus ^ 1. State ofehfaattisgarh, ThK>ugh The Secretaiy, TechniGal "Educatkin, Janshakti Niyojan, Vighyan E^vam Prodhogiki VibUag, Mantralaya, Raipur; GHhattisgarfa. oy y f •f^^^y <te, v^'^?^ ^M^ <>r-''^-y : /-yy ^'.^^ (?' - 2. Joint Director, Industrial 'I'raifung Institutes, Raipur, Chliattisgarh. ^3. F^incipal, Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRrr PETm©NUNDESSAR?EICEE 226 QE'TI® CONSTn'UTtONOFINDIA M HIGHCOURTOFGHHMTiSGARH:Biy^SPUR SinaleBenehiHon'bleShnlVlanjneiraMohaiiStM'ivastavai.J. WRIT PETraiONfSl N0.374^2810 PETiTiONER KanhaiyaLatSahu - :'Versus'.:::—, ; -1': • ' : ; RESPONDENfS StatedfChhattisgartiandothers .^?\ WRltPET8TiONyNDER»KriCI-E^SOFTHESONSTiTUT!ONOF!NESiA i6R{: • ;ShriCJ;KiSao,sciynse!i'fo('<tl'aie.peti{ibner., ;; : • ' .^ShriVin(xt^kam,.Pahell-owtyer'flaF,ttieState., , ;: ORiALORDER ; ':1':!' ' . (Passed on 23"' Juiy; 2010) This peiition has been flied byihe petitioner seeking issuance of direetion iw consideration of his representation in the matter of ciaim for reguiarisatifln. 2. it is su&mitted that the petitjpner has beeH (^inuing as dai empioyee.i^amedcounseiforthepetitionersuixnitsthMth&^S^ hasissuedapoiicydated 05/03/2008 ^nnexureP/4).to'regu|anse irreguiar appointments, in view of the judgmerrt of the Supreme Court in Ihe case of Secretarv.StateofKamatakaandothels v. UmaDeviOlandOthers (2006^4 SCC1.-- , ' ' ; : : . : ,. ..': : .: .. : • ; :/: 1 '3. In yi®»of the aforesaid submi^ion, without cbmmeriting upon the mente of lhecaseorerrtiUwnentqfthepetitipner,thispetitHinisfinaiiydi^6sed^w^ to tHe; petitioner t6 make representation in r^pecrt of hfe represertation fflade, jt wouid be openlor the rBSpQnderts tq coireider and take decision on such representation strictty In accordaiioe withiaw, lai<l down by the Supreroe Courtin thecase ofUmaDevl(Supra). : 4. With the aforesaid observations, the petitiOn is firiaiiy disposed off. • Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ~~=- i^ Judge