.^\A-- (Q ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ petition no-<-T-l^/2005 PETITIONER- ^ BHAJO RAM PATEL Aged about 40 years, Son of Shri Ram Ratan Patel, Resident ofBamdadih, Post-Salhetarai,Via- Sankara (JONK) Tah. Saraipali.EDU. Distt." Mahasamund ^ VER^US RESPONDENTS \ ^-—^-^^- ^' 1 - STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya D.K.S Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) )ENTS V ^--^y ^^ ^^ y^ ^ <«^ ^" ^ 3:< ^..^^ ^^^ ^o^' .^ o^'" ^ 2- Director ofPublic Instructions Govt. ofChhattisgarh Directorate ofPublidnstructions (DPI Office) Pension Bada Raipur (C.G.) " 3- Deputy Director ofPublic Instmctions Govemment of Chhattisgarh Education Department Education District Mahasamund P.0 Mahasamund ^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^1<-1<<1J ^bNl^ 3^T r^N«n^,^Tf1^4l(o, fc|dl^t^< [?TM5|ch p^ . .. .TTA .\ .\'»,7^^ [ .1 n ^: 200^ W^T^T ^i<=h3T1^T Sh^lch W^f?cT W^\ ^kllW^cT 19-4-2005 Mr. Alok Nigam, Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Heard both the counsei. The case of the petitioner Department of the erstwhile Stete| appointment of ad-hoc Assistan^ Schools. !n that test th©petition^r appointed for a period of three month. However, the sewices ofl vacancy, whjch arose on accoi services, was filied by the Stat petitioner is regularly making rep| for appointment on the post of Tes in the year 1997 the ersfrA/hile teachers in place of Shiksha Karrfii, by the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the allowed to make a representat grievances and respondent No.2 which Having heard tearned coun^ facts and circumstances of the detaijed representetion to ail hjs grievances, and in turn, r^s? representation made by the three months from the date of the I counsel for pie petitioner. Lav^yer for the State. StaDe iearned counsel for th©Stat^ of Chhattisgarh responcflent ch!^?^i41'i ^i^<nT^:tel^t<f^^<ii< ^ ^3rf^TT3TT^T is that (n the year 1984 the Education 1 of Madhya Pradesh conducted a test for Teachers in the Government Primary was selected and accordingly. he was i^onths on a fixed saiary of Rs.300/- per the petitioner were djscontinued and the <nt of discontinuation of the petitioner's of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the 1-esentations for considering the petitioner |cher. Further case of the petitioner is that of M.P. took a decision to appoint ad-hoc rfii, but the same is not being impjemented p^titioner submjts that the petitioner may be :|on to respondent No.2 raising all his j)©directed to decids his represeniatjon, to has no objoction. sel for the parties and havJng regard to the ^ase, the petitjoner is allowed to make a No.2 within ten days from today raising r^spondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitjo|ner and decide the same within a period of receiptofthe represeniation in an objective r~: XI-HC-22 3:^''<<NI<?1<4, ^Tft^l(g, (c)d|^^< ^l ^(51^ ^-..^.^?..^/ g,^^..................U^.^ ^Q^ ^ ^i^^i ^-nw f^^' W^T^T ^TWW^T SbHi<=h^rf?cT Soma ^TT^r^TT^K^T -^- manner after considenng the gne\/pnces of the peiiliofiyi, 111 <aw. of. With the direction aforesaid Consequentiy, i.A.Nos.283^ Parties are entitled for certifi +I^Id^^ W^TT" ^-' te<^ ^TRK ^3Tf^T3H^T the petition stands disposed of. ^2005 and 2835/2005 aiso stand disposed •dcopyofthisorder. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge