éég \ 3 @ IN THEIHIGH COURT OF CHHATLISGARH,AT BILASPUR (C.G.) wRIT PEIITION 1&0. L3 ZL/zopS, Post Lagra, Via Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS The State of/Chhattisgarh, _ through : the Secretary, Department of Edycation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS «k {£343 03 ./Z§§$ 2. 3. The District Education Officer, Education Distt. Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Department of Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) The Secretary, Department of General Administration, Mantralay, D.K.S. ‘ Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) / ’ ‘© /~ ,‘ i PETITIONER Balram Prasad Pandey, son ‘ Shri Rajendra Prasad Pandey, aged 26 (presently 50) years, Ad-hocr Assistant Teacher, ff Government Primary School — ’ «a» Patwa, VSalhegori, Bundeli 0) Q .. “,(t ( f7 (Kunda), Tahsil — Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur (Presendy Kawardha distt.) (C.G.), resident of village Salhegori, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC-22 WWW WWEWW ’ $31i§ltranéw * 6-4-2005 Mr. Pritam Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Dubey‘ Govt. Advocate for‘the State/respondents. Heard both the counsel. ;"\: 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 fxed salary of Rs 300f- per month and after completion of the tenure the petitioners servxces were discontinued. Thereafter, for the vacancy which arose on accounLoL L discontinuation of the services of the petitioner, appomtment of other persony 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 of the petitioner. ln the year 1997, vide order dated 28-8-1997 (Annexure P- ' 2), the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh issued a circular to all the for the post of Teacher should be titled by appointment of ad-hoc teac ers. But, the State Goverhment is not considering the request of the etitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a represe tation to the respondents State and the Government may be directed to consider the same and decide after due consideration to which learned ovt. Advocate has no objection. Having heard learned c unsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, l am of the opinion that it is a ht case in . ' which the petitioner should b allowed to make a detailed representation l raising all his grievances. T erefore, the petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation to res ondent No.2 within aperiod of 15 days from i today, and in turn, responden No.2 is directed to consider the same and i decide in an objective manner after considering all the points raised by the (disaliav‘n .‘q XI-HC—22 33W, 3mm, Wm WAJ $432