sSs ^ -V "^ IX TBE MADBTA ^S&BBSB ADHrBISTR&a'IVE TBIi^NAI. A2 JABM.PUI API'LICWEt O.A.Bo. to.^- tte- Arvind Kfaar®S/o Shri Eaj^aliadar Kiaare la -tsbe offiea of Trf.&elpaly SoTei'&aails Slghar Seeondary Sebool Ea»T'ft 'Bebehtar K( Soabat;, 2'Absll Baikantlgiaffi M.P. RESPONDfflTSs l* Steite of Madlya Eradesh, Ihrougb, Vb»f Soevetsayf COMEd.asioaer, Avaa tettaachit Jatl Ks&atiAy l, Mlaspua? 5. Pri.nsl Sovt. Seeoadary Sctoel, Soiihat I&st.Sar^ija li.P* APII.ieA'SSOB U/S 19 OP TBE^ABUMISTB&.TIVE TEEBEJHilLS &CT,8S COURT OF <Mni E -E MR. SATiSH Petitioner Respondents versus IP 9nns :i~ .fii'w'^^' An/ind Khar® State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) snd others Mr. Anii Kumar Pandey, counsej for the petltioner. W.t. V.v.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Gsnerai with Mr. •Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocafe for the respondents/State. >th (Passed on 12"' Day of December, 2006) The petitioner was Initiaily appointed as Lab-Assistant by ordsr dated 13-8-1988 (Annexure A-1$. Thersafter, the petltioner was rsgularlsed on the sald post by ordsr dated 17-2-1990 (Annexure A-3). Ths appointment of the petitioner on regular post was cancelled by ordsr dated 17-11-1992 (Annexure A-4) and thsreafter he was terminated from the servics by ordsr dated 23-11-19S2 (Annexure A-5). Being aggrieved, the pstitioner has fiied this petltion seeking quashlng of the order dated 17-11-1992 (Annexurs A-4) and ths order datsd 23-11 -1992 (Annexure A-5) and further for a direction to deem the petitioner as appointed on reguiar basis since 22-8-1988. The resDondents have filed thsir return on 26-4-1994 ng as unae? "2. The answering respondents, mosf humbly submits that as psr the Government ins'iruct'ions wlth regard to reguiarization of oaity wages smpioyees are, they should havs completed 5 ysars of servlce on daily wages and then there would bs givsn the reguiar pay-scals sStsr being screened by the' reguiar screening commlttse. Copy o* the Govsrnmsnt order is enciosed herewlth as Annexyrs_^RJ. The case of ths a.Dpiicant wou'd no'v be considered in the mcnth of Aprit'94 by the screening CQmmittee and if found nt he wouid be reguiarissd." 4. Learnsd counse! appearing for the petitioner submte that this petition be dlspossd of in view of the submission mads by the respondents to rssularise services of the petitioner after completlon of fivsyears. For the submission made by the respondents in their rsturn, this petition is disposed of accordingiy. No order as to costs.