3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ........i^S-:^^ S*SIS!tSic'i6"15 BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. '^- /2003 PETITIONER 2.-<£©?1 ^'^' .•^K^ ^^y /-^o>'i> ^^y <- ^' <^// o RESPONDENTS (hl. '"^ 'A !S -k f . s. ^=.=rA ''a i'i ?j " N;a? '?^" il 4. Shukla Charan Bhardwaj, Guruji (Teacher) Education Gaurantee Scheme, School Deepa Para, S/o Shri Kanhaiya lal Bhardwaj, aged about 32 years, resident of village Anwala Chakka Teihsil- Saraipali, Distt. - Mahasamund, Chhatisgrah. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Jila Panchayat, Mahasmund, Through Secretory Jila panchayat, Mahasamund (C.G.) ChiefExecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, Tahsil.- Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund. Gram. Panchayat, Anwala Chakka, through The Sarpanch, Block Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund. (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIAlXtRISSUEOFANAPPROPRIATE WRITINTHE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIQJlAiiI ETC. OR DIRECTION /ORDERINTHE UKENATURE ETC. ^v •y ^ r versus Shukla Charan Bhardws State of Chhattisgarh Others Shri K.N.Nande, eounsei forthe peiitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State/res Shri Aditya Khare, counse] for resp. No.3. None for other respondents, (22.07.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that under the Education Guarantes scheme, the petitioner was appointed ae Ouruji in the year 1999 and he continued on the said post tilS the year 2003, According to the counsel for the petitioner, as he has worked as Gurdji for four years he has every right for oonsideration of his case to be appointed as Shiksha Karmi. Contention of the counsel for the petitione' has been seriously digputed by the counse} for the respondents and they have argued th&t once schooi of the petitioner itself bas been closed, the petitionsr waa appointed purely on temporar;' basis under a particular scbeme, he has no right •whatsoever to be appointed as Shiksha Karmi. Purther it has been argued that under the Shiksha Karmi Appointment Rules, there is no proirision for giving any weightage to the petitioner who was working as Gurjji under the parttcuiar scheme. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner wants to -'iyithdras? this petition with iiberty to file representation before the competent authority i.e. resp. No.3. He however suhmits that direction may be issued to the rssp. No.3 f or deciding the representation of the petitioner. According'ly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge