^^ ^&^ t?'-^^^"' -v^^ S?N^^ ^.' ;^AI /4 ^"^•^ ^^ C^ 2^7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. Writ Petition (S) No 6^-°j) /2010 Petitione^s (1) ^ 7(2) /,/ Devlal Sahu, aged about 38 years S/o Unjuram Sahu, Village and Post Chandli Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur Shiksha Karmi Grade - II Bhushan Prasad Sahu aged about 37 Years, S/o Jalasram Sahu, Village Pathara, Post Office Phulwari, Tahsil Lormi Distt. Bilaspur Shiksha Karmi Grade-II Versus Respondents (1) ^ ^(2) (3) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur. Director Public Instruction Office of Director Public Education Raipur. District Education Officer, KabirDham. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice PritinkerDiwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6709 of 2010 PETITIONERS Devlal Sahu and another VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel forthe petitioners. Smt. Smitha Ghaj PL for respondents/State. WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLES226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (23.11.2010) Grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that initially they were appointed as Contract Teacher Grade I, II, III and thereafter as Shiksha Karmi Grade 1, II, III but they are not being permitted to appearforthe post of Head Master on the ground that they do not have the experience of seven yearsas Shiksha Karmi. 2. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that now the government has taken a decision to permit all those Shiksha Karmis who have the experience of seven years either on the post of Contract Teacher or on the post of Shiksha Karmi and therefore, there remains nothing in the present petition. She has shown the letter dated 19.11.2010 issued by the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur addressed to the Advocate General. Copy of the said letter has been given to Shri Kotecha also and he is satisfied with the same. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the date of the examination for the post of head master has not yet been declared, declaration to that effect may be made atany time, and as the petitioners apprehend that they may not be permitted to appear in the same, a direction may be issued to the competent authority to permit them to appear in the said examination. ^ 3. State counsel submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is premature and ifthey have duly filled in the application forms, the authority concerned would act pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government vide letter dated 19.11 .2010. 111 ^h 4. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, as nothing survives in the petition, it is disposedof with a direction to the competent authority to permitthe petitioners to appear in the examination whenever they are scheduled to take place, for the post of Head Master pursuant to the decision taken by the State Govemment subject to the verification of the fact that the petitioners have filled in their forms and the same have been duly accepted by the authority concerned. 5. If the grievance of the petitioners still survives, they would be at liberty to approach this Court. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge m^