lEiC 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. / 4 3 ~=h /2005 PETITIONER ^' Amiruddin Seikh S/o. Shri Kashimuddin Seikh, aged about 45 years, R/o. Village - Kunda, Block 85 Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, ^s^^^ .•••'Y ^ s>s:::,-^ ^.^' -8$.'^% :,"")• <-,0^ ^J < 2) Director of Public Instructions, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Directorate of Public Instructions, (DPI Office) Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) ^ ..^^ 3) Deputy Director of Public ^v'^.?^ ^ o^^^ ^- Instruction, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Education Department, Education District Bilaspur, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 ^6 3^ -^l^lcl^, 81x0'y'Ko, fs|diy*J,< 311^1 ^?ich ^IKdl sb^icb •7r?'l(<'"~-~-<--1-^^ ^v -200 3TT^T^)T f^ri^w^T T^'^rf?cT ^RT^^T 3TT^T^<TT^K^{i?T 11^^-2005 the Teacher Mr. Aiok Nigam, counsei for thje Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Law^ Heard both the counsel. The case of the petitioner [Department of the erstwhile State cjf lappointment of ad-hoc Assistant |Schoo!s. In that test the petitioner laepointed for a period of three m< However, the services of vacancy, which arose on account services, was filled by the State petitioner j$ regularly making for appointment on the post of in the year 1997 the erstwhKe State | teachers in place of Shiksha Karmi| by the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the pet^ii allowed to make a representatiot grievances and respondent No.2 bej which learned counsel for the State 4f Having heard leamed couns^i facts and circumstences of the detailed representation to respondet|it all his grievances, and in turn, res( representation made by the petition^r three months from the date of the ^ that jn the year 1981 the Education Madhya Pradesh conducted a test for ITeachers in the Government Primary was seiected and accor^lingly, he was ^s^di^^^^ calse ^i^?d41ri ^i^<nT^ftel:A<[^^di< ^31^R'W^T petitioner. ter for the State. nths on ^e^ petitioner were discontinued and the of discontinuation of the petitioner's |of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the repre|sentations for considering the petitioner Further case of the petitioner is that |of M.P. took a decision to appoint ad-hoc but the same is not being implemented lioner submits that the petitioner may be to respondent No.2 raising all his directed to decide h$s representation, to >f Chhattisgarh has no objoction. for the parties and having regard to the se, the petitioner is allowed to make a it No.2 within ten days from today raising )ondent No.2 is directed to consider the and decide the same within a period of ofthe representation in an objective re|ceipt A XI-HC-22 Soma s^^pn^r, ^w^, f^rrey ^l M5JCh ^( ^l^CII Sh^ich^..^..i.43.^[^ f^[' ^3Tf^T3T[^._ ____^____..^ ler^'in accordance with With the direction aforesaijj, the petition stands disposed of. Consequentiy, I.A.Nos.28^6/2005 and 2847/2005 also stand disposed^ 3T^T?^TTW:fff^cr - '+l^fd^ ^INdT^te^^l^R; Parties are entitled for certified copy ofthis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^^^^'fi^i^/a^^ tAW 6^^'^<<° ^J^ ^jf^ ^—<-^-^^^C -^- ^5^ - ~ ^^^.^ <- -y Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^s/^/e,^— / y^ O / <^L^ ^