IN THE HIGHfQURT OFnJDICATURE ATBILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.NO. 3-7^-s /2oo4 Sffigle Beoch PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1] ^/<^< '/^>y //yy ?'>y <y^ 2] 3] 4] 5] .<y ^ Shivcharan S/o. Chandra Pratap, Aged about 27 years, - R/o. Vfflage Nayabandh, Vikas Khand Bataul, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. BhawanRaipur (C.G.) The CoIIector, Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Qfflcer (Revenue) Sitapur, DIstrict Surguja (C.G.) The Chief Executive Qf&cer, Janpad Panchayat Batauli/ DistrirtSurguja (CG.) Raj'eev Kumar S/o. Jagat Ram^ Aged about 28 years, R/o. VUlage Birimkela, Tahsil Sifapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Rajkumar Sonwami, S/o. Loknath, Aged about 35 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Birimkela Tahsil Sitapur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) Ramedhar S/o. Blukalu/ Aged about 30 years, Panch, Gram PanchayatBirtmkela Tahsil Sitapur, D.istrirtSurguja (C.G.) Kadakram S/o. Gopi, Aged about 45 years, Gram Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Birimkela Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja(C;G.) Budhanram S/p. Uriknown/Aged about 30 years, Member ^of Selection Conimittee ofSamvida ShikshaK Grade- m, E/o. Sitapur, DistnctSurguja (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE2^27 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OEINDIA 6] > \ ^ ': ^ir ':1; i'•Tr'7:^!;'';m''^^-!^^t^£fflrEE^iiSi®3SR'^!i;;^^"^7@^s^s ffl ^? XI-HC—78 sn^i^iRi-i)'* ^K 3TR?? s?>^let» ^^ •<ii<iici<l, ynily'16, Rl^jy^'!. . W-P. 394S ' , HINCTI a»*iiee»""""""""""""""""""""'""""""^T^2004 3n^i''ra?;'('^i^5|^tt) ^ <?f^T petitictier 03/02/2005 Shri Manoj Paranjape, leame|J Shri Sandeep Dybey, 1< State/respondents 1,2and 3, on ad\ Heard on I.A. No. 7762/200^ hearing. The matter is taken up on stands disposed of. Also heard on admission. The grievance of the contract teacher vide order dat< challenged before the Sub Divisionjal Revenue Case No. 20/B-121/200; vide order dated 17/04/2004 cs petitioner on the ground of not foll^ concerned Gram Panchayat. A Annexure P-9. It is stated by the le^ an appeal against thesaid order| 22/05/2004. However, the Collectoil the appeal. Presently, leamed cot makes a limited prayer that this p|6 direction to the Collector to decide early as possible within a stipula^ cometoanend. counsel for the petitioner. ^arned Panel Lawyer for the lancecopy. which is an appljcation.for urgent 6oard. Hence IA. No. 7762/2004 Qpr'6)t<n*ill T?I^Tf ^f 'fe1^ if^l^K ^ ailm sii^i cojsy isthat he was seleetedas a ^d 17/09/2003. This order was pfficer by one Rajeev Kumar ffl -2004. The Sub Divisional Officer (ncefled.the appointment of the [iwing the proper procedure by the of the order has been filed as kmed counsel for the petitioner that |was fited b6fore the Collector on has not^ken any final decision in inselappearing for the petitioner (etition may be disposed of with a (he appeal filed bythe petitioneras |ed period so that the matter may XJ-HC—78 sn^i ^n R-fi<* i!«ffSTT^T »*iiq) ^^^\ ^^ *<1*1CTI %W<* '3'"T'<ll<l|<n^, 8>'CTl'M'l<a, ft|<a«1^< —..M:^....3743.................. 3?l^?[ 'qa^; ('yly'i?) -i- Learned counsel appearingl objection to the said limited prayet- the petitioner. In consequence, it is directe|:l appeal of the petitioner as early a^ of two months frorri the date of filil its own merits in accoFdance withl Goyrt has not expressed any opih| aforesaid djrection, the petition star( Consequently, M.W.P. No. standclisposedof. Certified copyas per rules. <:bi'i(ldAt1'rt ^it1?ifTf fe%t <Rn'tTfi< ^? sifttl sn^il fbr e State/respondents has no made by the learned counsel for that the Collector shall decide the •possible preferabty within a period |ig of certifiedcopy of tHis order on law. Needless to mention that this lonoh merits of the case. With ttie ds flnally disposed of. 4163/2004and I.A. No. 614^005 Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha ~~- ~ Judge