^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 W. P. N0.'2o70 OF 2003 PETITIONER Veer Narayan Katiyar, S/o Shri V. S. Katiyar, aged about 33 years, Occupation - NU, R/o Azad 'Chowk, Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS -...^^' ,,^^" f^-""y' ..<.:r^ yf / State of Chhattisgarh fhrough Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Saachalak, Rajya Shaikshik Anusamdhan & Prashikshan Parishad, Chhattisgarh,Raipur Principal, Zfla Shiksha Avam Erashtkshan Sansfhan, Pendra, Distt. BUaspur (CG) i^f' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBIT10N AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS: ii(ti*fa-^L;..ail.j I-HC-22 'S^ -^nivn, s'alwis, fayiyy *<l*<CtT «)11<»> •CTSR? _.....y...'v,.^,i9^p/ ^......................^...^...^ ^ ^p^ N^si' SfI^I'^1 f<-ti?h sn^i aiHict) ^if^T sti^i TOnwHft^ ^)l^i^J<fl<T '^P^' "^ f^[3l if^t^K ^? Slf-dT 31KW 05.11.2003 Shri Adiish Shrivastdva, co^insel for the petitioner. 5hri Praveen Das, Ponel LaN^yer for the Stnte/respondent No.l. Heord botii the counsel. The petitioner's petition |s that in order to provkle Computer Education in the School Educatiojn, -the Central Sovemment sponsored a scheme under which, in -the erstwjhile State of Modhya Pnidesh, 45 posts of part-time computer teachers ^ere created in 45 bistrict Institutions of Education A Trainin9 known a^ 'tSIET. These institutions at district level work under the control of $chool Education Department under the immedkite control of birectorol|e, M.P. State Educational Research & Trainihg Council, Bhopal. A circufpr darted 13.12.1994 (Annexure P-1) was issued by The State of Madhya Pjndedi and vide memo dated 18.09.1995, the birectorate sought sanct^on of the Finance Deparhnent for increasing remunenitron from Piaj.750/- to Rs.1,000/-. The Oirectorate issued circukn- ohted 31.10.1995 to the Principuls of bIET inctuding. the &IET, Pendra, imparting necess^uy instructions with re9<ird to use of Computer. Under thort scheme, jthe petitioner wos q)pointed vide order dated 21.08.1996 by -the Princip^l, DIET, Pendra as Part-time Computer Teacher up to 30 June, 1997. After •the appointment, Ihe petitk>r»r started working as Part--time Coijipu-ter Teacher under the scheme. The F -t- XI-HC-22 '5^ 'ttww<t, anlwiio, R«*ti'Hy iiHwr a>*<i<»> _..^.^.^a. 20C3 ^t^fS' SII^T^I 'f^licb ^t^l s?iN •^f^a sn^iiTOiiw^fe -3- cr»(^<tiiffi^i:^ ^ T^^ <P>t'^.K ^3I^OT3TC?I work of the petitioner has been th^rough out satisfactory ond there wos no complaint whotsoever against 1+14 petitioner. The petitioner is a highly quo^lrfied person. He is B.Sc. (Ma-ths) and he has done M.A. in Mistory. The ^etitioner has also done Post Sraduate Diplomo Course in Computer Scierjce and Application. The petitioner's service was continued. On 22.09.1^97, an order was passed by which -the post of Part'-time Computer Teach^r and sanction thereof was continued j up to 30T August, 1997. Ther^after, again orders were passed on 08.05.1998, 26.03.1999 ond 06.^6.2000 under which the petitioner continued to work ond his work w^s satisfactory. He continued year to year, but no order has been pass^d for regularizing the oppointment of the petitioner*. The petitioner come to kn^w •that steps were being taken for regubrization of services of o'ther^ Teachers by the Sovemment of expecting that his service would b not the daily wage employee^ instructions re9ardin9 termmort-io simibrly situated P<xrt--time Computer (Wadhya Prodesh. The petitioner was ^ reguhrized. It wus ulso chrified on 15.02.2000 by the Directorote tl^at Part'-Time Computer Teachers are and Therefore, -the Sovernment t of daily wage employees are not applicable. The Storte of MacH^ya Prodesh took a decision at •the ©ovemment tevel to reguhrize ^ill the part-time computer teachers based on qualifications for appoint^nent on •the post of lecturer by callm9 < [TJ^'^f^ -?- XI-HC-22 ^q-qpn^iq, ^twre, ('icii'yy *fl*<wi Vifneh ^fB 1<^^< ^ t ..^.s..i&t..syzpf •^ 1 200^ anS^q^ f?;iii?;3ii^?[ ^ff ^itil '*l<<fi'l<i1-l 11*<<-il'"? fet?t <pi|«<lt ^i'ari^wsn^ th^m for interview end scrutinizing th4ir cases. The birector vide his ni4mo dated 03.01.2001 informed tiie ^chool Education Department of ©(jvernmentof M.P. •that DIET, Pendra now falls wi'thin the jurisdiction ofl ChhatM^arh Sovemment. Howeve^, no specific orders are bein9 is^ued in •the State of Chhatti^arh. Fi|rther sanction of continuonce of th^ service of the petitioner was not is4»dby -the Director m the State J - - 1 ofj Oihattisgarh. The petittoner made| a representation to •the Chief I 1 Miliister, but even then no order^ have been passed on the re|resentation of -the petitioner. The respondents are duty bound to co|isider aid decide his representation e^id pass appropriate order to his fa+e. The leamed counsel for the petiti^ner aibmits that the fast order of Mcjdhyu Pradesh for one year and ther^after, no order for continucuice of the petitioner has been passed by t|ie Sovemment of Chhattisgarh. Th^refore, the petitioner made a repres^ntation, but the representation No the |tetjtioner was passed on O606.$000 by Ihe erstwhile State of ha^ not been considered ond decided.l sul^mits that •the petitioner moy be al| afilesh, and the Sovemment be direc*e<j th^ leamed Panel Lawyer appeou'ing on tehalf of the State/respondent 1 has no objection. The leamed counsel further lowed submit a representation, to consider tiie same to which -:A-. [Tit^ ^s^ XI-HC-22 "s^ •<<wic)<<, anl^'is, 1^?irey *<]*<CTI (hlich _...^.^.Ko<.SD2o %/ 2003 311^1 ^il k'U* 5SRRI i^^icb ^lf^fl Soma 311^1 TRIIWdtef -^ circumstdnfces representttron his 1-laving heord the leamed regard to the facts and allowed to make a detailed State/respondent No.l withm fifteei^ State/respondent No.l shall decide •t+iree months from the date of objective manner, with a reasoned With the above observations disposed of. Consequently, I.A.No.9099/20Q; Parties ore entitled for cert-ifietl coUnsel rtjceipt ordler .9099/20d3 also ani<il<*i<i1i *^wvK ^ ^^ <^(-^,K •^ 3ri^f({ 3TR[3?f for the parties and having of the case, the petitioner is raising all his griennce to the ckiys from tocby ond in tum, the representation wilhin a period of of the representation in an and directions The petition stonds stands disposed of. copyof this order. ^df- L.C. Bhadoo Judge y: ,<\ y^'^ ['tft^ ^fe^