c , ^ ^ SINGl.E BENCH @ (S IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ petition no-lS.^-/2005 PETITIONER - ^' RAVI SHANKAR PATEL Aged about 44 years, Son of Shri Hari krishna Patel, Resident ofvillage Pirda Tah. Saraipali. Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS^M ^^y ^yy ><".^' .x<- .^0'"^ ^' ^y '^>"<'T ^ 1- STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya D.K.S Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) 2- Director ofPublic Instructions Govt. of Chhattisgarh Directorate ofPublidnstructions (DPI Office) Pension Bada Raipur (C.G.) 3- Deputy Director ofPublic Instructions Govemment ofChhattisgarh Education Department Education District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3^T ^i^Krt^, ^Tf1tl4j<o, f®ldt<Hli< ^l^l M3<Ch WH^TT^^nW 3T1^T^T ^[ch^TT^T W^f^cT $b^l<;h<1 119^1-2005 3TT^T^<TT^R:^f?cT thje of Teacher Mr. Alok NJgam, counsei for Mr. Akhil Agrawai, Panel Law^j Heard both the counsei. The case of the petitioner [Department of the erstwhile State |appointment of ad-hoc Assistant |Schools. In that test the petitioner [appointed for a period of three m^ fmonth. However, the services of t| Ivacancy, which arose on accounf services, was filled by the State petitioner is regularly making for appointment on the post in th©year 1997 the ©rstwhileState| teachers in piace of Shiksha Karmi) by the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the petj^ ailowed to make a representatiofi grievances and respondent No.2 bej which teamod counsel forthe State Having heard learned couns^' fects and circumstances of the detaiied representation to respondei|»t all his grievances, and jn turn. res| representation made by the petition^r threo months from the date of the <^i<4^41^ w^rf ^* te^t <[^^ii< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T petitioner. |er for the State. i^ that in the year 1981 the Education Madhya Pradesh conducted a test for jTeachers in the Government Primary was seiected and accordingly. he was ^nths on a fixed salary of Rs.350/- per t(ie petitioner were discontinued and the of discontinuatjon of the petitioner's |of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the r@pre|sentations for consjdering the petitioner Teac|ier. Further case of the petitioner is that |of M.P. took a decision to appoint ad-hoc but the same is not being implemented |oner submits that the petitjoner may be >fi to respondent No.2 raising atl ht's directed to decide his representation, to 4<?Chhattisgarh has no objectjon. for the partjes and having regard to the ;a|se, the petitioner <s allowed to make a No.2 within ten days from today raisjng ()ondent No.2 is directed to consider the and decide the same within a period of r^ceipt of the representation in an objectjve calse XI-HC-22 3^T ^j^id^, ^Tft<ili^, i^<ni^^< 0 3TT^T ^5<Cft ^W^\ Sb^icb—.t^o?..t>?.a..\.'J\?^-l°ST ^.~.^.A7-.^...>..i.-.^.(. ^ t^^ 3TI^T^T f^t^3TT^T 9b^icb^f?cT ^l^l^dlW^T ^-^ ft-. Soma thle (Yianner after considering the grievarl |aw. With the direction aforesaid, Consequentty, I.A.Nos.2837/2^ ^f. Parties are entitled for certifiedl cbi^Ici41Ti ^i^<nT^'teI:^t<[^t«i< ^3:rf^T3TT^T ces of the petitioner, Sn accordance with ^ petition stands disposed of. P05 and 2838/2005 also stand disposed copyofthisorder. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Bl