W IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. WRIT PETITION No. L326 /2005 PETITIONER Purushottam Tiwari, son 01' Shri Bhagwat ‘Tiwari, ageq about 20 (Presently 43) years, rAd—hoc Assistant Teacher,‘ Government Primary School — Khamhariya, Vikas \Khand Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (CG), resident of village — Dullapur, Post Mahaii, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (Presently distt. Kawardha} (CG) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of’ Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, Lok ShikShan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The District Education Officer, Education Distt. Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) 4. The State of Madhya Pradeshl through the Secretary, Department of Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal: ’ (Madhya Pradesh) The Secretary, Department oi General Administration; Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan,: Raipur (CG) ‘ as“w. a.“ w. - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CON STITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC—22 mm WW WW L4 6-4-2005 for the petitioner. Mr. Pritam Tiwari, counsel Heard both the counsel. month and after compiétion of discontinued. discontinuation of the services of of the petitioner. In the year 199 vacancies for the post of Teach The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as ad-hoc teacher in the year 1979 for a period of three months on a fixed salary of Rs.300/— per the tenure, the petitioner’s services Were Thereafter, for‘the vacancy which arose on account...of.. , the petitioner, appointment of other person! was made on that post, and since then the petitioner is making regular representations, and the Government is not paying any heed to the request 7, vide order dated 26-8-1 997, the erstwhile State of‘ Madhya Pradesh issue a circuiar to all the Departments that the r should be fitted by appointment of ad-hoc teachers. But, the State Government is not considering the request of the petitioner. r- Learned counsel for the titioner submits that the petitioner may be aiiowed to make a represent Government may be directed tc consideration to which learned G Having heard teamed cou Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. tion to the respondents State and the consider the same and decide after due Dvt. Advocate has no objection. wsei for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the petitioner should be raising all his grievances. The detailed representation to respot today, and in turn, respondent WEE allowed to make a detaiied representation 'efore, the petitioner is aiiowecl to make a 1dent No.2 'within a period of 15 days from \io.2 is directed to consider the same and decide in an obiective manner gher considering-all the points raisedW V i “EVA XI-HC-22 3aW, m,W W W mm mm WW mmm?w aa‘mfwmW EWW #1.... QKWW petitioner within twa months from the date of receipt of the representation, in accordance with law. With the direction aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. \lo.1028/2005 and i.A.No.2502/2005 also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. i t Sd/- “ L.C.BHAD00 Judge