s c^ 2^^^7 u BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (CGl WRIT PETITION ( S ) N0.^ fc& / 2011 PETITIONER ./ -^ Hitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Vyas Narayan Sahu Aged about 28 years, Data Entry operator R/o Block Education Office Nagri District- Dhamtari(C.G.) Javed Ali rizvi S/o Late Shri Shabbilr Ali Rijvi Age about 25 years, Data Entry Operator R/o Dak Bangla Ward Civil Line,Dhamtari(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ .0 xY'^'s/ a%%f^ ^^y sf^y »»' .«' •«•' .f y/.^ 1. The State of Chattissgarh Through the Secretary Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan ,Raipur ( C G ) ^" 2.,- Block Education Officer Adhivashi Vikash Khnad,Nagri District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat Nagri, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ 4 Additional Commissioner Adhivashi Vikash Khnad.Nagri District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ^6- y\ 1 WRIT miTI-N "Mn'=R ARTICLF.226 OF THE 'CONSTmm-nNOF INDIA. ^ 3 OURT VU STTI' IWI^ &L,^ >HRi ¥ RESPONDENT PFTITinN llj!yni tiun unui Hitendra Kumar Sahu and another. versus The of Chhattisgarh and others. ",r" COI OF INDSJ Shri B.K. Chakn Shri Sushil Dul sarty', counse! for petltioners. i, Govt. Advocate for the State. f^l^f^i FoHowing UKMt. UKUEK (31/01/2011) >ra! order of the Court was passed by Prashaot Kumar W'sb (2) Petitioner has cal!ed in question the action of the respondent in not contmulng his services as Data Entry Operator. He has also prayed for quashment ofthe order 18/01/200* (3) ^ On perusai of the order Annexure P/11 It wouid appear that one Kaiiash Chandra Sahu has aiready been appointed on contract basis under the order by the Coltector CTribat Development). Dhamtari on 27/10/2009 and at present t'ne sald Kailash Chandra Sahu is working as Data Entry Operator on contract basis. The instant petition has been submitted after more than tw'o'years from the of passing ofthe order Annexure P/11. Further the petitioner has neither challenged the order by the Collector, Dh-amtari appointing Shri Kaiiash Chandra Sahu nor has arrayed the said subsequent appointee as a respondent in this writ petition. (4) in the opinion of this Court, the instant writ petition suffers frQm iaches. Even othepA'ise the petitionsr has no right to continue on the post as it has bee" mentioned in Annexure P/11 that he was- directed to perform work as Data Entry Operator on payment of labour charges depending on ihe work. ,lf-»i- ^^. ;ith, ^s- 2,- er, at this stage, makes a prayer ubmit a representation before the (5) Learned counsel for t'ne petitionf t'hat the petitioner may be ailowed to subm! concerned Authority. (6) In view of ihe prayer made, it is directed that if the petitioner submits a representation before the Authority raisina his grievance, the same shali be considered and disposed of within a period of eight weeks trom today. (7) With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge IG