-L IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.Gl W.P. (Sl N0. ^-^23" OF 2011 PETITIONER »,A ,A^ ?}.-^v;'.t<"' ^^•"^\.Afi ^'.^ .^ ^ ^f- RESPONDENTS Dev Prasad Kaushik, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Ramsahay Kaushik, Shiksha Karmi Varg-III, Government Girls Primary School Sakarra Block Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1.^ State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Panchayat & Social welfare Department , Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. r TheCoIlector, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/2270ETHE CONSTITUION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITiNKER DIWAKER Petitioaer Respondents W.P.CSl.NO. 7725 /2011 Dev Prasad Kaushik versus State of Chhattisgarh Others s\ \\ Shri K.S.Pawar, eounsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. ORDBR (16.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that initially he was appointed on contract basis for the census work and thereafter circular was issued by the State Govemment for issuing regular appointment to such persons in the Government posts. According to the petitioner, number of similarly placed persons have been appointed as LDC/Assistant Grade-III whereas the petitioner has been appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III which is not a regular government post. He further submits that some of the persons who were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi, later on they too were appointed on regular posts of LDC/Assistant Grade-III or equivalent to the said post but the case of the petitioner has not been considered. He submits that at this stage, purpose of filing fhis petition would be served if direction is issued to the respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation (Annexure P/6) of the petitioner. State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh detailed representation to the respondenfc No.3 and in turn the same would be decided in accordance with law. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in tum it is expected from the respondent N0.3 to decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court. has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. [ i Sd/- 1 pritinkerDiwaker Judge