^^~' Izr^// BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IC.G.l W.P.(S) No..........13:^...........OF 2011 PETITIONER : Pawan Kumar Morla, S/o Shri Ghantaiya, aged about 31 year, Address - Village - Gunlapeta, Post - Bhopalpatnam, Th. - Bhopalpatnam, Dist. - Bijapur (C.G) ^ ^w'/,\^ ^•.y^ ^yv^ .^,\ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^' r^^ tP*MI«j^ r^7 • ^ \^ -<^ ®.^ 1. ' State of Chhattisgarh Through: the Secretary, Panchayat and Social wetfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchyat Bopalpattnam Dist. - Bijapur (C.G.) 1> WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WMT The petitioner begs to submit as under :- 1. Particulars of the petitioner : As given in the above cause title. 2. Partjculars ofthe Respondents : As given in the above cause title. y/"~'\ ^ i:st^!S^ ^L7 "1GH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PET!T!GN (S5 N0. 2011 PETITiONER RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition Sinate Pawan KumarMoria Versus ^ State of Chhattlsgarh & Another under Article 226 of the Constitution of india] ;nch : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 01st day of April, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is the order dated 21.07.2010, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was canceled on the ground that under clause (b) of sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha termis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, it is provided that mlnimum 8 months teaching experience will be considered as 1 year experience. 2. !n the case on hand, the experience of petltioner was 6 months 22 days and as such, it was not treated as experience of 1 year under the above-stated provisions of iaw. In view of that, the petitioner would get 50.44 marks after addlng 03 marks against experience. If 03 marks of experience is not added, the total marks would be 47.44 and as such the petitioner is out of the seiect iist. Thus, the impugned order is just and proper, in accordance with law and warrants no interference. 3. Accordingiy, the writ petition is dismissed. S^" ^A^ Ashok