c. -6ivis)6:nB?i<t<£^ ?-^ lN'EH^iSiOT^mS«XI^<3emS ^^^^ ,J;Sy''BI:^Sl>VR^-.;.'.::'^ : WRrTAPPBALNo. IUS. /2009 .APPELLAWTS PETITIQNEES w^:l- ^ >$^'cf3..--"-% .,- -...•<^"n"^i"fiftA^ p.R.N*-—'^^;,,.fc,^N-7-y"~''.. ^^o^.^^-""'"" RESPONDENTS : 1. ^2. ?%<£? f^^ Sint. Amrika Bareth w/^ Shri^Samesh Bareth; Agea about 29 years, R/b village aad Post Temar, District Janjgir-ChaBipa (G.G.). Eaushlaya Kumari w/0 Sliri Rajarani Kurre, aged about 44 yearg, R/o village Saraipali, Posl-PartBa, ' : .: District JaEygir-CKanipa (C.G.) VERSUS Uhiprt.of India, . ' :x:"':'-:''-'.'.:-';:'';'.-..-:":' .:-.^". •'..:'. '•". '.• '^•;?-'T tyKn-igU ttte Secretary, j ffiim^n\EesourcesE>epa!rtmen]t; NewDelhi. . . State of Ghfaattisgarh Throughthe Secretary, Schpol Edueation Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, . RaipurtC.G.). , :. Sfate of Madhya-Pradesh . Throughthe Secretary, Public Instructiohs, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhbpal (M.P.) : , ; . Collectorand MissioiiDirec'fbr, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Missidn, DistrictiJanjgir-Cliatnpa (C.G.) ;^Sri^ffi%SK^^@i n WRTT APPEAt UNDER SECTION 2(lt OF THE CHHATTISGARH (APPEAL TQ DlVISIOK BENCHt AGT. 2006. IBOHCeWRTOB'caiHAniSGAiai.BIUUSPOR WRIT JtfiPEAL M0>.t4a QF 2009 DB; HON'BLBI.M.^mroUSIfc HON'BI.EK.K. AGRAWAI., JJ W.A.Ne. 142 of 2009 .-^> V8. WRIT AWEAL imDER 2tXI <M? TRHE CHHA'THMUURH (AI> AL TODivisi<MiBEaKamAeT.aoo6 APPEARAKCB: Mrs. Renu Kochar, counsel for fhe AppeBants. Miss Farah Minhaj, coui^cl for Rcspondcnt no.l/Uiuon of India. Mr. G. D. Waswani.Govt. Advocatefortlie State/ respoiulent no.3. Nc»nefer ofher leSpondeirts. juDcmaarr (27.08.20101 PwJt,]M,QDJ[»)USU,Jr 1. This writ appeal h^ becnfiled against the order dated 16.10.2008 p^sed by fhe leaincd Singte Judge iaW. P. No. 3146/ 2004 disinissing fhe said writ pctition. " 2.^. The writ appeUants wcre appoiuted iinder Non-Fonnal Education Scheme in between fhe years 1993 aiul 1997 on different dates. Tfae schcinc was a teiuporaiy seheinc and fhe appoiiitaients Were inade to the post of Ixistruetor (Anudeshak) ontemporaiy basis imder the Scheine atid they were assigaed fhe task for opcnmg Non-formal Ediiealadi APPELLANT8 Siut. Amrika Bareth aad another RBapQKprarra Uiuoa oflndia and ftwotters ^:^s"»1 ity' '•vsf~tssff Ccntres motwatu^ tbe students to attcad the centres and for runniag the centoes. Ttie scheine was ctosed in fhe year 2000 aad fheicafter a proposal was niade to accomniodate theni in Rajeev Gandhi Rhitaahn Mission but it appears fhat the same 'has also bcen aboUshed and now fhcy are jobfcss. <f 3. In case of Gwrt. of Tnndl JWcute -ys- G. JMWiomed AmeenudiUn <uut others 4JR 1999 S.C. 3303, Hon'ble thc Supreiae Court has directed as uader: "We have heard leamed counsel oa bofh sides for quite sonac tirne, Considering tbe xiature of fhe inatter we thinlr it would be appropriate fbr the appeUaat to fiame a scheine to absorb the respondents and other einployees who have been retrenched who are similarly placed. Once ia a decade census opcration is earried out and fhose peraoxis who have regutered themselves ia the Einployment Exchange get jobs in the Census Departmcnt and when the project is ovcr their einployinent coiae to an end aad they are retrenched thcreby losing both ttec eiuployment and their position in fhe queue in fhe Einployment Exchai^e. In these circuinstanccs, it woiild be appropriate for the appellaat to work out a scfawae to absorb these eiaployees ia appropriate em.ployments. Let such a schenic be worked out as wc thinlr that such a situatioa occasioaalty anse. On earlicr occ^ious wlien such situation had armen, those wtao had donc similar jobs, had bccn absorbed in fhe Govemment serwce by fhe appeUaat. In dou^ so, fhe Ctovemmcnt may also bear in muad whethcr the cmployees can be recruited in the -tocal aufhorities, qii^i-govennnent oiganizatton or Goverament Coiapairics." w ijr ^tss^^N&^. ^s'-g^ 11%: g^'f ^i., "v^s '<^K.^y;;3S^:si" fv 5. saai ^^ Tliercfore, withoUt looldng into tfie &cts and eircuinstances aad aierits of fhe case, wc are of the opnion that the appellants wiU tlave Uberty t6 xnove a representation before the conccmed authoritics and if such a represcntatfon is inade, the same shatt be considcred in the light ofdccisioa of the Supreiae Court in Govt. of Tcaml Nadu -vs- G. Mohamed ATneenuddin (suprq.). However, we scc no grouiul to inteifere in the ordcr dated 16.10.2008 passed by thc leamcd Su%le Judge. With fhe abovc observation/direction, this writ appcal ^tands (feposed of. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge