IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. /2005 ./ /~f ^y^ /y/y/^ vA4^Z ^/ .-••' y .••"'.( /^/fr' ^ .»0"^"..^ ^•'^ Ac Gourcharan Sahu, aged about 24 (46) years, son of Shri Antaryami Sahu, Ad-hoc Agsistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Ko'mraud, Vikas Khand Bagbahra, Tah. and Distt. Mahasamund (Earlier Distt. Raipur) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. rP^ -^^ ^y ^" ^ ^ !^\ as •M The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) / 2. The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) / 3. The District Education Officer, Education Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ; 4. The State of Madhya Pradesh through : the Secretary, Department of Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) WR.IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ;; ^-s 3I)^T?iT fN^sn^T aii {lf?(T 3ST '<ll<llcl<<, ®Tn<l'is,fsjr)l<H^< 3TT^?T sra^i HWWI VlWfi^..^..F.-..(.7^ R|<)<A 2005^ 3<l^lg'WIWdf?tT Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsetl A'lr. Akhil Aqrawsi, Pane|i faspondents No.l to 3. Heard both the counsei. Tne case of the Qetitip the erstwhile State of appointment of ad-hoc Assistt ochoois. In •H"at test ths Del was aDDoinred on 28-2-1984 a^ 'three mbnths on a fixed salail seryices of the petitione.r w^ arose on account of disconti) fillsd bv the Stote of Maahvls regular'ly making representat| appo'n+ment on ths post of T^ thst in the ysar 1997 the srls+w appoint ad-hoc Teachers in pi beinq imoiemented by the Stat^ Learned counsel for mdy be aiiowed to make a rep| 'n'ie grievancss and responi^snt °ni<iffi<fli HiiinT¥tec^t<Rit<i< ^•3T^IT3IT^?r for the DeTitioner. i Lawysr for ths Stdte of Chha+tisoarh/' her w that the Education &<gartmetit of fidhya Pradesh conducted a te-st for bnt Teachers in the 6over"ment Primar1,' jtitione" was selscteci aia accor'dJnfliy, he Ad-hoc Assistant Teacher for a period of \y of Rs.300/- per month. However, th.e i-re discontinued and +he vacmcy, which huation of the DetiTioner's services, .vas Pradesh. ThereGftsr. th®sstitionsr is lons for' considerinQ fne Detitioner for fcschsr. Further case of "t+ie oetit'oner '.s fe+whiie State of M.P- took Q decision to of shiksha Karmi, bu* *he same is not of ChhcttiSQGrh. peTitioner subm'ts that the petjtioner hesentation to resoondent No.2 r'aisina ali No.2 be dirsctsd to aecide his r n'l'.n'.^i iajee rhfe XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f^iNi'sn^r sbiii* yfed ioma 3^ "41<IIM<1, ain'M'16, [cjrtiy^ ^.^Ti-s^ 200 5~^ *iTticir^*Tra> R|<)«^ Sil^l SWlWHf^cT - 2. reDresentGtion, to which ieoirn) 'nasno ob.jection. Havinq h&ard learned th®facts and clrcumstancas mate a detailea r'eDresenTatiorl coUnsel i-oday raisin9 atl his grievoiiice to consider 1+ie representatio^ same within a period of Threel the rspresentation m an arieyances of the Detitioner. in| With -riie direction afgrals 0]l> '-.onssquenTiy, stand disoosed of. Par+ies are an+itied for 'niiFcKfl-l *lllMTifte^<Rl«l<, ^srf^tITSd^T •d counssi fsr the State of Chhattisgarh |jnsel for the parties and having regard to bf tha ecse, the petitioner' is aliowed to •ro resoondenT No.2 within Ten days from |, wici in turn, respondent No.2 is directeci made by the petitioner and decide the months from The date of the receipt of >jsctive mw.ns" after eonsidsring ths laccordance with iaw. said,1t!®peti 30-1359/2005 and I-A-No-3348/2005 aiso ;ertified CODV of 1t~>is order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ie /' 'ifi"? 'c •y