HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT Bl LASPUR WRIT PETITKON No. 3945 0f2004 ?ETITIONERS : 1. Ramesh Kumar Pand§y S/e Shri Ramnath I’andey, Aged about 41 yams, R/o Village Hirri Biack Farasgaon, Distt: Bastar (CG) Birju Ram Sethia S/o Laxman, aged abnui 41 wars, b) R/o Village Kopabeda, Blmk Kondagaorg, Dim: Bastar {06.) 3. Panohram Patel S/o Somaru Ram, Aged aboui 35 wars, R/o Villaga Masora, Block Kondgaon, Disit: Bastar (CG) 4. Niranjan Patel, S/o jairam Patel, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sambalpug Tamil Kondagaon, Dim: Bagtar (CG) Rama§har Pate], 8/0 Bakkaram, Aged 32 years, Rio ‘Jl Viiiage Sambaipuf, Tahsil Kandagami, Distt Samar (cg) Sudar Dias Siltyavamhi, S/o Sukalu R3111 Aged abem GK 33 yam, R/o Village Bamhani, Tahsil Kondagaoti, Disti‘: Bastar (0G,) ’7. Banghilal l’atei’ 3/0 E’unuram Aged about 34 yams, Rh) Viliage Masora, Bléck Koadagamiu, Distt: Bastar (06.) 8. Surjulal Sinha S/o Phool Singh, Aged abaut 34 yearii, R/o V'diage Bhanpuri, Biock Farasgaon, Distt: i$astar (C.G. 9. Johanlai Ber S/o Lakmuram, Ageci about 43 yams, Rm Viliaga Kumia, Black Kondagaun, Distt: Bastar (Cg) 1&Umesh Kumar Ber Sfo Lakmumm, Aged atom 3§ yearSy R10 Viiiage Kusma. Biock Kondagaom Distt: Bastar (C.G.) ' lLGaStamm Suwavanshi S/o Sukalu Rm Ageti abeut 25 years, R/o Villaga Bhamixi, Biock Kamiagaon, Dim: Ba$1ar (CG) 12. Jeetm Ram S/o Sufrd Ram, AgeCi aboai 2? years, R/‘e Village Baniyagaorl, Tahsil Korwagaon, Distt: Bastar (06.) 13‘ Jammulaj Kaushik S/o Dalpa’g Aged ab0ut 31 years? R/o Villagg Adkachepra, Tahsil Kondagaom Disti: Basiar KEG.) l4.Amilal Patel 8/0 Kusmjram, Aged amm 32 yeam, R/o Village Masora, Block Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (CG) liMeshoram Markam, S/e Sukmaln, Aged abeut 32 years, R10 Village Singapuri, Tahsil mundagaon, Dim: Basm (cm 16.3ukalumm 8/0 Rajmz‘m, Aged abeui 32 yetug, R10 Madanar. 'I‘ahsil Kondagaon EJisft : Basiar {CG} l7, Rehit Kuma’r Paiel 3/0 Manglu, Aged abom 32 years, R10 Village Peegra, 'I‘ahSil KeShmal, Distt: Bastar (C3) Trw \ I l @ _ .2. VERSUS Union of lndia Through the Secretaxy, Home 2. The Secretary, Panchayat 85 Rural Development y... RESPONDENTS Resam‘cei; Department, New Deihi. Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C_.G.) Sm ofChhamsgam '1‘hmugh The Secreta ‘ 3 Sch“): Edueatign Department, Maxitralaya, Raipur Digit: Raipur (CG) ' , w 4. State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary, Fubliolnstmc‘tions Mantralaya, Bhopad, Dist: Bhopal (MR) ‘JI The Coilecmr & District Missien Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shjksha Missian, iagdzdpur, Dim : Bama , (ca) , , WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDlA gB: Htm’ble Shx'i Samh K. Agmhétri: J. Present: Shri Shri Santosh Amn Sac), Bharai, Govemmant Advocaie Advocate for the petitioners" for the State/respmidem No. 2, 3 aw 5. ORAL ORDER {E’zwsed an Q5m day ef August, 200$) 1. The yetitioners were appointec‘i at Aupcharike‘ttar Shiksha Kendra in District Bilaspur. The peiitioners have not tiled any appéintment order indicating terms of appointment. 1t appears that the Aupcharikettar Shiksha scheme has come to an end as averred by the petitioners in paxa 5.4 ofthe petition. The services of the petitioners were discontinued. The petitionem have flied this petition on i 8J0.2004, praying for the foliowing reliefs : “7.1 To issue a writ ofmandamus direoting the respondems to appoint aii eligible persons who had worked under the Aopcharikettar ghiksha Sangh. Schools a‘iter giiiing/due weightage. 7.2. To airect the respondmits to make a provision m the ruies framed for crmtractual teachers for apoointment of teachers worked in Aupcharikettar Shiksha Kendra by giving the weightage arid priority and relaxation in tetms of age. which 7.3 Any this other Hon’ble relief Court or reliefs feeis fit may in the also faets be granted & circumstances to the petitioner ofthe cage. ” 2. Shri Sao: learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were appointed on honorarium, as Gurnji. in the meantime, the State Govemmenthas framed ruies namely There services have come to “0 ‘ an end. ’x‘K t t t t t l t r Panchayat Sham 8amvida Shikshak (Niyukti 'Ta’i}1a ‘Sewa Shane) Niyam, 2004 (for $11011: ‘the Ruies, 2004), wherein provisions have been made for granting ¥ weightage to the contract teachers. If the petitioners are eligible, they may take recourse to me provisions ofRules, 2004. . Be that as it may, for want of adequate relevant documents? the dispute cannot be decided. The petitioners have not stated as to what was the nature of their appointments. On the basis ofsubmissions made by leamed counseQ appearing for the respondent State, it may be heid ihat ihe yetitioners were appointed as Gumji on honorarium basis for specified period. Since the scheme has come to an end, no relief can be granted to fhe petitioners. Looking into the prayer made by the petitioners, even otherwise. no reiief can be granted, as the petitioners have sought for direction to appoint ail eiigible persons who have worked under the Aupeharikettar Shiksha scheme and for giving ciae weightage and consequentiy, direct the respondents to make provisions in the rules for appointment of teachers who had worked in Aupcharikettar Shiksha Kendra. This is a. policy decision and it is for the State to decide asto what poiicy may be beneficial or should be made in the interest efyublic. It is trite law that no such direction can be issued to the government to irame rules or pass an Aet in a partieuiar manner. Thus. this petition being meritless, deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly. No order asto costs. 6. Consequentiyy M(W)}" No. 4354/2004, aiso stands dismissed. Ami: i Sd/r . M Sansh K. Agmiwt“; A Judge