^^s^^& ^^?s;'i'%?ls'?^^:'^^':B^^ t^s.^sM^i OT?:i)T?fNt^ •^TqiF^^^i^^ 3fftg;?Br, -gift5'^ 3rt.%.^-^g TT^R^.CTT? OTTE^TPT •ST?W ^t ^T°mTPi'3iTTE:?TT^, TOTO ErtT? ''mTtT, 'sgWT S(7TO ^FTT fSlRT fg?fTW7 ^q. ?•. S, 2. IT.9'., ?ITi!R 6T7T ^t'irT^JiRsq' y^B I^ICT-, fqffPT, IP^TFPT, ^aat 3R;T: irlTTFi j A y. g ^fqTO ifeTFI^i ftlW l^elTWr, ifyPI ftFIT?l¥7 JTT. 9'. 1 S1^rr f^sn^rg ifffpft-q- fyigT 3Tf^W, ftcfTW? sfTs\, ^f^ptTwr?' ^y. l ... arN^ (•ftq) fnw %y- afprra •.• SRT^^IBT STT^^H tm gfcl^ qTTT 19, ^TTi^ '3Ti^W STpETf^^^^^^^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J Writ Petition (Sl No.2550/2005 PETITIONER Rajendra Kumar Upadhyay State of Madhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and others RESPONDENTS A^p^arance: ShriAshwani Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 9.4.2010) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitionei^who was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 14.10.1982 (Annexure A-l) was later Qn terminated vide order dated 28.2.1983 (Annexure A-3) upon coinpletion of period of ad-hoc service. 2. It is submitted that some Assistant Teachers had approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal had passed orders directing the Government to consider their cases.It is also submitted that subsequently on 27th November, 1995 (AnnexureA-5), Govt. issued Circular directing its authority to consider such cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the State of Chhattisgarh, Government has come out with a policy to cpnsider such cases. He therefore sybmits that he may be allowed to make representation before the respondents authority. 3. Though no retum has been filed, leamed counsel for he respondents submits that at present there is no such scheme of the Government to consider such cases of ad-hoc teachers. He further submits that in 1 Praveen view of the judgment of Supreme Coyrt in the case of Secretary. State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. UmadeviJ3Laudothers,L2Q061 4 SCC 1. reliance placed on the order of Tribunal and subsequent Circular dated 27th Noveraber, 1995, is misplaced. 4. As counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to subinit a representation to the Government for consideration of his case, this Court would not comment on the merits of the case. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. s^ahm ^"TX.5"""" wss ^is^