W1$ $INGLE RENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Pe’ri’rioners éuNG WA P. (S) NO. /2010 OF INDIA Rajesh Kumar Ra’rhor‘e S/o Shri Radhelal Rafhor‘e, Aged abou’r 36 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-III a? Gov’r. Middle School Khokhasa, Block - Navagarh, Disf‘r. Janjgir‘ Champa-(C.G.) Mukesh Kumar Rafhor‘e S/o Shri Khiman Singh Ra‘rhore, Aged abou‘r 37 year's, Shiksha Karmi Grade—III, aT Govt Naveen Primary School, Darripar', Khokhla, Block - Navagarh, Disf‘r. Janjgir Champa-(C.G.) Krishna Gopal Ra‘rhor'e S/o Shri Uma Shanker' Rafhor‘e, Aged abou‘f 37 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, a’r GOVT. Primary School Purpura, Block - Novagarh, DisH. Janjgir Chompa—(C.G.) Ku. Suni’ra Sharma D/o La're Shri Mo'n'lal Shorma, Aged’ abou’r 42 years, Shiksha r Karmi Grade-III, at GovT. Primary Schooi, KuThur, Block - Navagarh, Dis‘H. Jaajgir Champa-(C.G.) XA WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION 5. Sm’r. Nim Ra’rhor'e W/o 5hri Pmbhut Ra‘rhor'e, Aged uhsuT 29 year's, Shiksha Karmi Grade—III, a‘r Govt. Primary School Jholi, Block - Navagar'h, Dis‘r‘r. Junjgir' Champa—(C.G.)' 6. Sanjeev Kumar' Rafhore S/o Devi Prasad Rathore, Aged abou’r 37 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Gov’r. Primary School Pacheda, Block - Navagar‘h, Disf‘r. Janjgir Champa—(C‘GJ 7. Akhnesh shukla s/o Ram Kumar Shukla, Aged abouT 34 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade— III a‘r Govt Primary School Bhafapara, Pacheda, Block - Navagarh, Dissf. Janjgir Champa—(C.6.) Versus smte of Chha’r’risgar‘h, Through - 21/ Secrefary Education, D.K.5. Bhawan, Ruipur, DisTT. Raipur’(C.G.) The Secre'rary. Panchayai D.K.$. Bhawan, Sachivdlaya, Raipur-(C.G.) i 3. Dis’r’r. EducaTion Officer, DisTT. Janjgir Champa—(C.G.) @ 4. Chief Execufive Officer, Navugurh, Dis’r’r. Janjgir Champa—(C,G.) WRIT EETIUON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION FQR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT/WRITSJ ORDER/ORDERS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ET OF INDIA JJ / C. W HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON’BLE 8HRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W348) NO. 6440[2010‘ Rajesh Kumax Rathore 8r. Others State of (LG. at. Others WRIT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION k OF INDIA 7 Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioners. Shn' Snmesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State oanm (25.11.2010) Grisvancc of the petitionars in this petition is that initially they were appointed as Contract Teacher Grade and thereafter as Shiksha Karmi but they are not being permitted to appear for the -post of Head Master on the gmund that they do not have the experience of seven yeals as Shiksha Kanm 2. Counsel for the respondents] State submits that now the government has taken a decision to permit all those Shiksha Karmis Who have the experience of seven yeaxs either on the post of. Contract Teacher or on the post of Shiksha Karmi and therefore, theme remains nothing in the present petition. He has shown the letter dated 19.1 1.2010 issued by the Dixector, Public Insnuctions, Raipur addressed to the Advocate General. Copy of the said letter has been given to Shri Rajput also and he is satisned with the same. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the examination for the post of head master is scheduled for 28. 11.20 10 ,1 & 29.11.2010 and as the petitioners apprehend that they may/not be permitted to appear in the same, a direction may be issued to the competent authority to permit them to appear in the said emminah'on. . 3. ‘ State counsel submits that the apprehension of the petitionels is pmmature and if they have duly mled in the application forms, the authority concerned would act pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government vide letter dated 19. 11,20 10. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as nothing survives in the petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to permit the petitioners to apnear in the examination to be v held on 28.11.2010 &. 29.11.2010 for the post of Head Master pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government subject to the verihcation of the fact that the petitioners have nlled in their forms and the same have been duly accepted by the authority concerned. If the grievance of the petitioners still survives, they would be at liberty to approach this Court. ' Sd/ Pritinker Diwaker Judge