'3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_BILASPUR WRTT PETH10NYS) No. 2014 of2009 PETmONERS : 1. Lachhiram Sahu, son of Late Vedram Sahu, aged about 45 years, residence of village Deradih, Post via Katgi. Tahsil Kasdole, District Raipur, Cliliattisgarh. 2. Ram Kripal, son of Thanuram, aged about 35 years, residence of village aiid post Matia via katgi, Tahsil Kasdole, District Raipur, Chliattisgarh. 3. Manohar Slirivas son of Shri Kundaram Shrivag, aged about 35 years, r@sidence of village aiid post Matia via katgi, Talisil Kasdole, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Atiila Sahu, wife of Dataratil Sahu, a^da bout 33 years, Paras Magar Kasdole, Tahsil Kasdole, District Raipur, ClAattisgarh. 5. Suklideo Das, son of Mahettar Das Manikpuri, aged about 35 years, residence of villag^ Daurabhata, Tahsil and Post Kasdole, District Raipur, Cliliattisgarh. VER8U8 RE8PONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i Secretary, Department of Panchayat and VUIIags Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Paachayat Raipur, District Raipur, Cliliattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdole, District Raipur, Cbhattisgarh. 4. Collector cum District Director, Rajeev Gaiidlii Shiksha Missioii, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, WRrr pETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE coNSTrruTioN OF INDIA SB: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Aenttiotri, J. Present: Shri CJ.K.Rao, Advocate for tlie petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General with Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondeiits 1 and 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 17th day of April, 2009) 1. With the consent of leamed wunsel appearmg for ffce parties, the matter is heard fmallv. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits fhat tfae petitioners were appointed ^ Gumjis for one academic session. Their services were discontinued atter one year. r^-^\ .^-^/ 2 3. It appears that the appomtment ofthe petitioners as Gumjis were not in accordance with the constitational scheme, even otherwise, their appointment was fbr one academic session and as such, the petitionei^ have no right to continue in sen^ice or to be reappomted again in fhe next academic session. 4. It is farther contended by leamed oounsel fbr the petitioners that similarly situated Gumjis have been considered by tfae concemed Collector and they on being found fit have been appointed as Shiksha Karmi Orade III. 5. It is prayed by leamed counsel for the petitioners fliat the p^titioners may be granted liberty to make representation to Ihe concemed authority and the concemed authority may be directed to consid@r cases ofthe petitioners for appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade III on their being fbund ofherwise qualified and fit for ai^ointme^t, on its own merit and in accordance with law, to which leamed counsel appearing forthe State/respondents 1 and 4 has no objection. 6. For the afbrementioned reasom, this petition is disposed ef with the above stated liberty. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt