S.JS Fio4- ^Dc £1 « B » ^(l^ ...^,.....-.....^.. by Sh?' -<y^ ^-vy .R. to A.R.(J) •2>3%o ^- '3-ocfj 7/rt<n»^ Smt. •rt&maw Devi Divakar W/0 fuki^a-w- Kartikram Devakar aged about 37 years R/0 Village-Kamhari Bi'ock- Lohara Dist-Kabirdham (C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : 2. Collector Dist.-Kabirdham (C.G.) Block E'ducation B!ock- Lohara Dist.-Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Sarpanch Village.Panchayat- Bachedi,B!ock-Lohara Djst.- Kabirdham(C.G,) \ .'^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTLSGARhL: BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3980 OF 2007 Smt. Rukmani Devi Divakar RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underAri:icle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms Swati Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER rORAU (Passed on this 19th day of March, 2010) Heard. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider her case for grant of appointment on the post of Anudeshika in Vaikalpik Vidyalaya. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Anudeshika in Vaikalpik Vidyalaya of Gram Panchayat, Bachedi. After passing of the resolution, the appointment was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner made frantic efforts before the authorities concerned for issuance of'appointment order, but no action has been taken till date. Thus, this petition. 3. On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the appointment on the post of Anudeshika could not be given to the petitioner, as the she was £ 6. Gowri not residing regularly in village Kohari and she was living with her husband, who was posted as Assistant Teacher far away from the territorial limit of Gram Panchayat, Bachedi. It is evident from the records that by resolution dated 23-1-1999 (Annexure -P/3) the name of the petitioner has been recommended for the post of Anudeshika. Thereafter, recommendation was made to the Block Education Officer accordingly. The petitioner could not be appointed on the post of AnudeshiKa on the ground that she was living with her husband outside Gram Panchayat, Bachedi. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State merits acceptance on the basis of records made available by the petitioner. Even otherwise, on the basis of recommendation the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Anudeshika. Recommendation was made in the year 1999. Till date it is not possible that the said post remained vacant and, as such, on the basis of material available on record, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatisbK.Agnihotn Judge Ifi-