Y-^: !<3H COURT OF CHHATTSSQARH AT BILASPUR i^ ^^ncn ', ^ois DI@ ^nr? ^siisn t€.> ^.oi^inotns Writ Petitton No.2669 of 3001 Petitioner Naravan SlnCh Pate! S.i'o Sh" JSgruOiiaH ^lHyn rCTtd, AyS-nOOUE ^i5 vears. Bv Caste Agnariva. R/o Auranara, Bioek & T®hs;i Dharamjaigarh, District Raigam (C.G.) Versiis Respondcriis 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretap/ of Scnool Educatlon DeDartment Mantralava. D. K. S Bhawan, Raipur. (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer. Janoaci Ow¥<(.<t{°t-">t^^'>A T^^^-Sf ?^^°'.'st*-"itViii'»-5^'a>F^'- i~dii iw-i i^ydti., ( ttr'i »^ii *»<'i itSti tfiti 1 sjcftiyAI i i, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. p.'esident of Janoad Panchavat. Btock &. Ttthsil Dhsi'aiTijsigsfh, Distiid /^^.fi^^m-.. .n^ E'S/.i.^f.L^-k F^;^!,-;^ r3/*.^-"s;-i '«^\>>i<s?^fcV ^t i\<Ki^<ti i t, iWt^Uiit/is, i \0!l; 5. Commissioner of RHaspiir Djvfsion. District SHaspur (C.G.) Writ Petition under Artfcte 226/227 ofthe Constitutjon of India Present : Shri P.P.Sahu. counsel for the Detitioner. Shri P.K.Bhadu,1';, Panel Lav.yer for the StaSs/rsspondenis No.1,4anas. SR.AL ORDeR (Psssed on fhls 1 day of Ju!y, 2008) Wjth the consent of learned ccfunsel aoBearina ft)r the Darties, the matter is heard fir'a'lv. (2) Th®petitioner has prayed for a di'rection to the respondents to issue a" aooolntment order as Der Annexure P-3 datec) 30-03-1995. The petitioner furthsr prays to quash other appolntment orders of those csndidateR who wer®aDDointed in the iine of the order datec! 30-03- 1995. The netition was fited on 1^-12-2001. The netJtioner was -2-- ^•^L aDDointed on 30-03-1995 fAnnexure P-3) on an honorarrjm of Rs.500/- Ber month for a oeriod of on®a.cademic vear. !+ a"oaare that the sen/ices of the DetitJorier wss discontiniied thereafter. The •''ietjtionor has fjled tliis oefltion in December, 2001 ?®akin<3for the same ordsr which amo'.ints to nassJnci a fresh aDDolntment order. This csnnot be d-one. (3) Shn P.P.Sahu. learned counse! appearing for the petitioner c.uhmite that sinc®the Detitioner is .contjnuina even after tha Reriod h'as come ro an end. the fresh aDRointment order msy bs oassed. The net'tjoner has fajled to make out a case for tnterference as no cause is shown to h-ave arisen. No relief to that effect can be oranted -dehcrs orevatent rules for iss'.,"na fresh apoointment order. (4) Thepetition isdevoid ofmerit, t-hus, dismlsaeri. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge >»« 5ops}