‘ ‘ A 1 \ ! {I‘ll-IE HIAGHICOURT’ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR x } 2 ; Wri‘t Petition (S) No. é?o$ /2010 : l Pet§tioners (1 Dinesh Kumar Pandey aged about 40 years § S/ 0‘ Latélswar Prasad Pandey, R/o— Village 1 8a Post — Bhatgaon District- Dhamtari. Shiksha Karmi Grade-1H i I § _. /(2) -Dilip Kumar Sanhara aged about 42 years I ; ? S/o-‘Shri Rup Kumar Sanhara R/o— Village — Bhothali Tahsil Dhamtari District— Dhamtari. Shiksha Karmi Grade—III i / [3] Ramesh Kumar Yadav aged about 4O years S/o— Shrl Kartik kumali‘ R/o— Village~Mudpara i i l ‘ post— Shiksha Achota Karmi Tahsil— Grade—Illl Kul‘ud District-’ Dhamtari. 1 i l l Munnuram Sahu aged labout 36 years S/o—” Shri Bhansingh SahulR/OJVillage— \j Piparchedi, Post— Bhothfali District— Dhamtari.( CG) Shiksha Karmi Grade—III [5] a » Shivnarayan Sahugaged about 41 years, / l S/o— Shri Mangtu Sahu, R/o— Village Rundri, : Post— Rundri District—Dhamtari. ( CG) l ShikshaKan'niGIade-III‘ /l [6] r Shailendra Kumag‘Sahu, aged about>34 years S/ o— Shri Chabilal Yadav, R/ o— Village—Barana, Post- Barana Distriet— Dhamtari\(CG) Shiksha Karmi Grade—HI /{7] Harishankar Dhruy, aged about 35 years, ‘ w S/o- Shri Vishauram Dhruv, R/o— Village — *Bishrampur, Post Shantipur Tahsil 85 District: Dhamtari Shiksha Karfrli Grade—III {8] Smt. Mungeswari\.Nagendra aged about 33 g years, W/o §hri Gyanikram Nagendra. R/o- Village: Bori‘dKhurd’VPost- Bhatgaon. Shiksha Karmi Grade-III § Y / [9] Smt. Kunti’Sahu aged about 3 years W/o— l Shri Sa:nt S/ahu, R/o— Village Sarem Post, \ /[4] A« \N Bhatgaon District Dhamtari. Shiksha Karmiéfgrade—ILTI Versus ‘ IN Resgjmndents /(1) State of Chhattsgarh through the Secretary Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur. (2) Director Public I struction, Office o Directbrs Public Education Raipur. (3) I District Education Officer, Dhamtari / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \\ t / f i ’ i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Dimker) Writ Petition (S) No, 6708 of 2010 PETITIONERS Dinesh Kumér Pandey and others VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Pa‘rag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Smitha Ghai PL for respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (23.11.2010) Grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that initially they were appointed as Contract Teacher Grade iii and thereafter as Shiksha Karmi Grade lli but they are not being permitted to appear for the post of’Head Master on the ground that they do not have the experience of seven years I as Shiksha Karmi. 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 years either on the post of Contract Teacher or on the post of Shiksha Karmi and therefore, there remains nothing in the present petition. She has shown the Ietter dated 19.1 1 .2010 issued by the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur addressed to the Advocate General. COpy of the said Ietter has been given to Shri Kotecha also and he is satisfied with the same. Counsei for the petitioners submits that though the date of the examination for the post of head. master has not yet been deciared,,_...,...... . declaration to that effect may be made at any time, 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 examination. 3 i'State coyunsel submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is premature and if they have duly filled in the application forms, the authority concerned. would. act pursuant to_ the decision taken by the State ‘Government vide Ietter dated 19.1t1 .201 0. i t )i! \r ’1 ~‘ g _y2— 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 appear in the examination whenever they are scheduled to take place, for the post of Head Master pursuant to the decision taken by the State GoVernment subject to the verification of the fact that the petitioners have filled in their forms and the samehave been duly accepted by the authority concerned. . If the grievance of the petitioners still survives, they would be at l, l sw— ’ Pritinker Diwaker , LT Judge ;5 liberty to approach this Court.