^ p ^ 3/='r g y' ^^fS?^^ SIIICIIf BfcH^H /-.s^ :%. ^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (SlNoJ^ /2010 PETITIONER \ •^ .\^^^ ^^^s0 .-^^y RESPONDENTS -^; ^jS1/^, 'v^ ...•"'-. '•'. 'f^^ r0 Shobhit Kumar Sahu, S/o. Omprakash Sahu, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Madhaibhata, Post- Madhaibhata, Tahsil Bhilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2 Collector Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) .. 3 The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur /- 4 Block Education Officer, Block Bilaigarh, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 5 Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Madhaibhata, Block- Bilaigarh, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UND^^^TICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f" .WS'WSS^A ii ^&& 1 ~i^vj .^ <y tf^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR PETiTIONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITiON (S) N0.1414 OF 2010 Shobhit Kumar Sahu Versus Stete of Chhattisgarh & Othars (Writ petition under Articte 226 of the Constittrtion of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrj, J. Present:- Ms Savita Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER <ORAU (Passed onthis 1stdayofApril,2010) 1. Wfth the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the p^itioner subrrtts that the petitioner was appointed as Guruji for one academic session. The services of the petitioner was discontinued after one year. 3. It appears that the appointment of the petitioner as Guruji was not in accordance with the Constitutional Sch»ne of employment. Even otherwise, their appoirrtment was for one academic session and, as such, the petitioner has no right to continue in service or to be reappointed again in the next academic session. » 4. It is further contended-by learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated Gurujis have been considered by the eoncemed Coilector and they on being found fit, have besn appointed as Shtksha Karmi Grade III. Gowri 5. It is prayed by leamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be granted liberty to make a representation to the concerned authority and the concemed authortty may be directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade III on his being foundotherwisa qualifled and flt for appointment on its own merit and in accordance with law, to which ^eamed counset appearing for the respondents/State has no objectton. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, thia petltion is disposed of with the above-stated liberty without expressing any opinion on merits. No order asto costs. _ ^^^^^^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge