^ ^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH -^ 'K' f AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. 31^ ^o/o PETITIONERS : RESPONDBNTS ^ijay Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Dubey Aged about- 40 years, Shiksha Karmi -I, posted at District Institute of Education 85 Training, (DIET), Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) VBRSUS /l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . / 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /3. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Vallabha Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) ^4. 5. 76. Director Public Instructions, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) limT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^6 ^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT MLA8PUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 315 of2010 PETmONER : VijayKumarDubey. VER8U8 RESPONDENT8 : Stale ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'ffiE CONSTmjnON OF BSOIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. ACTihotri, J. ft-esent: Shri Anupam Dabey, Advocate fbr tfae petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advoeate for Ihe State. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd day of January, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner claims ab^Mption on the post ofUpper Division Teacher/Teacher-, as per policy dated 26.6.1995. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are ifcat the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher in Mahatma Gandhi Higfaer Secondary School, Riwa (Lakholi) Raipur oa 20.06.1995 (Annexure P/3). Pursuant to the circular dated 26.6.1995, fhe Mahatma Gandhi Higfaer Secondary School, Riwa (Lakholi) Raipw was taken over by the State Govemment on 15.12.1998. The post of Upper Division Teacher against which the p@titio$ier was workmg, admittedly, was not sanctioned. Thus, 1fae case ofthe petitioner was considered and he was appointed on the posst ofShiksha Kaimi Grade II, by order dated 16.6.2005 (Annexure P/10). 3. Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that fhe 7 lectureiis and Assistant Grade III were absorbed and regular pay scdle was granted by order dated 8.6.2007 (Annexure P/14). Shri Pawan Kumar Chaiidrakar, Assistant Teacher (Science) and Shri I^hwari Amit 2 Prasad Verma, Physical Training Instmctw, were also granted regular pay scale vide order dated 22.02.2007 (Aimexure P/15). 4. Shri Dubey fiirther submits fhat tfie ^titioner made repr^entations dated 9.10.2006, 7.5.2007, 11.09.2008 (Amiexure P/18 colly.) but tfae respondent aufhorities have not tak^a any decision on the representations-, as aforestated. It is farther cotrtended that the Hi^i Court of Madhya Pradesh, in W.P. No. 6850/2000, dedded on 28.01.2004, observed that the teachmg staffis entitled for absorption as Lecturer, UD.T. (re-designated as Teacher), L.D.T. (re-designated as Assistant Teacher) as pertheir qualifications. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has a<x;epted aiyointoent on ihe post of Shiksha Kamii Grade II on 16.6.2005 (Amiexure P/10). The petttioner remained silent throughout for about 4 Vz years and kept 011 making representations. The laches and delay caimot be condoned on acc<mnt of pendency ofseveral representations. 6. However, in Ihe facts situation of the case, the respond^it-aufhQriti^s are directed to consider the representations dated 9.10.2006, 7.5.2007, 11.09.2008 (Annexure P/18 colly.) in accwdaace with law, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preterably witfain a period of 12 weeks fromtiie date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis (Mrder. 7. Accordingly, Ae writ petition is disposed o£ s<v- .. _ SatishK.A8»ibotn Judge