§m§w gggmih‘ !N THE “"3“ QU ATURE AT B!LASPUR CHHTTISGAE PETITIONER mi h'i'llm -ul 0 Z' U! “1lZ 4. ’m a CRT OF JUDIC A;. WD N0. I 25 6 .2005 x Ku‘ Durgeshwari Jain; Aged abcut Z4 years; W D/o. Narad Ram Jain; R/o. Village and Post Bhai’famgarh; Tahsil Bijagarh; District Daiékshin Bastar, Dantewada (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Thrcugh: Secretary, Tribai Welfare Depth; D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG; Collector, Dantewada; Distt Dakshin Bastar; Dantewada (CG) Director; Panchayat and Gramin 'Vikas Vibhag; Ch'hattisgarh; Raipur; Diatrict Raipur(CG) If, EEIRN PET!T!0N UNDER ART!CLE 2261227 OF THE N CQNSTITUTIQN QF LNDIA 4] Chief Executive Officer; Jampad / Panchayat, Bhairamgarh; Difstrict Dantewada (CG) 5] Block Education Officer, / Fanchayat; Bhairamgarh, Janpad Diistrict Dantewada (CG) 6} Chief Executive Officer; ‘/ Zila Panchayat, Dantewada; District Dantewada (CG) CATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR HIGH COURT ’OF JUDI W. P. No. 1256 OF 2006 Ku. Durgeshwari Jain Versus Pe1itioner Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 6n Others. Shri Manoj Pamnjpe, counsel for the patitioner. Shri Sunil Qtwani, panel lawyer for the respondents. ‘ 3, A ORAL ORDER (25th March, 2006) 1. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 30.11.2005, (Annexuie P—9), passed by the respondent No.5, whereby, the" OEcer Incharge of Primary Block Bhairamgarh, District Dantewada, has been directed that the order' dated‘” 20.1 Janpad Panchayat, Bhailamgarh, P-5), passed by the appointing Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III, be not given eh‘ect to without permission of District CoHector, Dantewada. sel for the petitioner submits that the 2. Lealned coun petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Shiksha Kanni Grade-III, vide order dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure P- ed by the respondent No.6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the joining report on 1. 12.2005, (Annexure P-8). has further submitted that the petitioner Learned counsel had joined the duties on 1.12.2005, itself. 3. The petitioner was informed that the entire selection process appointing Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, cancelled. lt is further contended that the petitioner has not School Naparpara, 0.2005, (Annexure 5) , pass has been mceived any written information as yet about ei'jgellation of the selecn'on proceedings, or his appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, submits that the petih'oner has never joined pursuant to his selection and appointment as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-Ill, as the Annexure P—8 is the application made by the peh'tioner to the Chief Executive onicer, Janpad panchayat, Bhairamgarh, for his joining. It was further submitted that since the entire selection proceedings have been quashed and new selection process has been initiated, the petitioner does not have any right to the appointment. 5. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation, (Annexure P— 11 and P—12) to the Secretary Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes, Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the respondents“ may be directed to decide the said representation within a stipulated period. . Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the facts: and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P—11 and P—12), in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks, nom the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order. 7. In View of foregoing, this petit‘on stands disposed of. No Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri " Judge order as to costs.