@CQ gmwwm" 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH, COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) No.5;113/ 2009 PETITIONER : Manjit Singh Bhatia S/o Shri Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, aged about 39 years, working as a; Optional Teacher (Vaikalpik Shikshak), at Bal Mitra Shala, (Government Primary .School), Tihupara, Simga, R/o. Azad Chowk, Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through“ the RESPONDENTS Secretary, Department of Primary Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Nagar Panchayat Simga, through its Chief Municipal Officer, Simga, District Raipur, (C.G.) Smt. Rudrani Diwan, aged about 42 years, R/o. Nagar Panchayat Quarters, Ward No.7, Opp. Police Station Simga, ’District Raipur (C.G.) z WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT[ WRITS, ORDE’R’ZORDERS, ORIAND DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARI, OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As per cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS : As per cause title. W/ gé x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5272 of 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the peti’doner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 16 day of September, 2009) The petitioner claims to be an ad hoe optional teacher (vaikalpik shikshak) posted at Bal Mitra Shala: Simga, Raipur. The petitioner submits that he alone is competent to be appointed on the regular post of Bal Mandir Shikshak. The Nagar Panchayat, Simga, District Raipur, by resolution dated 20m July, 2009 has resolved to appoint a daily wager namely Smt. Rudrani Diwan on the regular post of Bal Mandir Shikshak. 2. On query, asto whether the petitioner has been appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of empioyment, Shri Pandey is of the view that appointment and other orders are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case. 3. There is no record or document annexed to the petition indicating asto what was the nature of appointment of the petitioner. If he was on ad hoc basis, it may not be in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment and if his appointment itself was not legal i.e. by invitation of application from public at large, he cannot claim any relief against regularisationofirespondent No. 3. This is between the Government and the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has no locus to challenge regularisation ofrespondent No. 3. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. Sd/— f Satish K. Agnihotrii . 5 . f Judge PETITIONER Manjit Singh Bhatia. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. hr