IM JHE HIQH, COOa^ OF CHIA^ISGn EH A.tBII.ASPjJB, VJrl-c Pe'&itooii lio._,^c~?__/2001 P @I£LufiLSt ;.-•' ^'\T--'S /-^y^y. •••"'^lf-^' ^-^'v^"~ '.^" I&j KumarPatsl, 3/o Shri Jte.uram Pa'tei, Aged'abou-fc 30 years, &uniji at E.G..S. Genfcsr Dai tianpa ra; r'l andeU 2 ehsi3--P aEiga rh Distra.ct- Janjgir Ctenpa - Versus .S.ES'QED mxs s^1« State of Chteittisgarh Througfa: Ine Secrete.1^' Departiaent; of Panccaya'b Mantxalaya, Shastri cfaoyk, Paipur. 2. 'i'he C^ef 3xecu'fcive Officer, Janpad Paiichayal; Paingarii iiist-rict- Jan3gir Gte.npa iIT pE£ICTCUl_U fft ARuGLEs 226/227 OF J;HS cousaiai.tior. QS- MSJ& FOB issuAucs OF WHLZ j,]^ £HE M JpiE _OE GEaUQBA ffl; ^MU^DAWJS. 30;. OA^ZI£AaEJ?ZRB;a.uu,0 R, OKD®,. ^-Yi-n'L/- S^T^fraTyPT, ^^'16, fsfdiyy ^jj.f .'^Q , 'e.o'Tyfo^ tTTHCTr 8lH|ch TR; 3TI^TWR-fi»b tWT3TR?TsftH|cf, 3TT^?TtR^; (qqfg^ST) s^ciTW Hfscr sn^r ,.a.ffl,Qe .-?^T^'^^ Mr. Vinay Pandsy, coun< lour wnt pemions. Mr. Sushll Dube", Gove No-1/State In ail the four wrl rnrnent Advocate for resoondent 'jt petiaons. Mr. R.S.Marhas, counsel f^r respondent No.2/Chief Executive Q^I^AI- jp ^ii f^ig four wrlt Dstitions ^p^yywQn^c |^g3|'(^^ F^^COfd 1 Common ord^r diot^t^d In tii<<f<~i41-f TpraY ff fs^Sf <f»i<-<;!< ^srf^iTan^r el for the petitlonere in at! the ^fltg^C^ pen Court, passed separately. Sd/- Satish K. At Judge P.T.O. HIGH COVW OF CHHATTISGARH ATBTLASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. W7RFT PETITION N0.562 QF 2001 Petitioaers Shriram Khare and another versus Respondents State ofChhattisgarh and another WWT PETITION N0.604 OF 2001 PetitiouCT Bhuv-aeshwer Pi-asad Ratre versus ResDogdents State ofChhattisgarh and another WRFT PETmON N0.606 OF 2001 Petitioner Reshamlal Yadav versus Respondents State ofChhattisgarh and another ^-'T-— /'^ WWT PETmON N0.607 QF 2001 Petitioner Respondents Raj Kumar Patsl versus State ofChhattisgarh and another Present : Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioners in all the 'four writ petitions. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Guvernment Advocate for respondeiitNo.l/State in all the four \\'ni petitions. Mr. R.S.Marhas, counsel tbr respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officsr in all the four \vnt petitions. ORDER (Passed on 29th ofAugust, 2006) Leamed counsel for the parties, submit that Writ PetitionsNo.562.'2001, 604/2001, 606./2001 and 607/2001 involve a common question oflaw aad that offacts and pray fortheir disposal by a common order. Thus, all the four writ petitions are being disposed ofby a common order passed hereunder; 2. Learaedcoiinselappearing&rthepetitionerg.subniits that the pstitionsrs in all the petitions were appointed as Gunijis for oae academic session. Their sen'ices were discontinued after one vear in somecases and earlier in some cases. i^ 3. It appears that appointments of the petitioners as Gunyis were not in accordance with the Constitiitional Scheme, even othenwse their appoiiitment was for oae academic session and as such, the petitioners have no right to continue in sen-ice or to be reappointed agam in the next academic session. 4. It is fi.irther coatended by leamed counsel for the '*< petitioiiers that similarly situated Gurujis have been eonsidered by thc concemed Collector and, on their being found fit, have been appointed as ShikshaKarmi Grade-III. 5. It is prayed for by learaed counsel for the petitioners that the petitionei-s be granted libert;' to make representation to the concemed authority and the concemed authority be directed to consider cases ofthe petitioners for appointment as SHiksha Karmi Grade-III on their being found othenvise qualified aud fit for appomtment in .accordance with law, to which learaed counsel appearing forthe respondents have no objection. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, all the four writ petitions are disposed ofwiththe above-stated liberty. No.order as tacosts. Sd/- 1 SatishK.Ag Judge