(9 IN T}E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / Writ Petition No 26 gLK /2005 PETITIONERS 2 1 Dharendra Kumar Rathore Slo Shli Teej Ram Rather: Aged about 47 year, R/o Village Nandore Kala, Tah— Shakti, Distt- Janjgir Chalnpa (C.G‘) Anil‘Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Rup Narayan Rathore Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Nandore Kala, Tah- Shakti, Distt— Janj gir Champa (C.G.) Anant Ram Rathore S/o Firm Ram Rathore Aged about 41 years, R/o Village Kachanda (Raja) P.O. Jhama, Tahsil— Champa, Distt— Janj gir Champa (C.G.) Fuleshwar Pras‘ad Rathore S/o Shir Kashi Ram Rathore Aged about— 39 years, R/o Village ‘ Si'rli, PO. Sirli, Tahsil— Shakti, Distt— ‘Janjgir Champa (C.G.) x5 Anii Kumar Rai S/o Shri R.N. Rai, Aged about 48 years, R/o ~ Shakti , Post- Shakti, Tahsil — Shakti, Distt- Janjgir — Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh . /,, Through: Secretary, School Education Department, Raipur (C.G.) ? a @ x ' 2)» Deputy Director Education, / Distt- Janigir Champa (CG) / / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT (S) OR ORDER (S) QR DIRECTION{S) WW.W‘W 311w m WW‘ . w‘frmug’; um”mm W wwwiiwm $Wm B : Hon’hie Shri Manindra Mohan 0-05-2011 Shri Sanjaev Verma, ccunsgl Shri N, Naha Roy, Pane! Laws Heard. This petition has been fiied by the petitioners oiaiming regularization. Learned counsei for the petitk appointed as Assistant Teacher on z the ad hoc Assistant Teachers; wi approached the Tribunal and the others Shrivastava, J. br the petitioners. 'er for the State. )ners submits that the petitioners were rd hoc basis. He submits that some of to are similarly situated, had earlier existing Tribunal passed orders in the case of Rameshwar Giri rsus tate of M. & {.No.543/1994),[Annexare P- nd lso the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, aipr in the case of Ramashankar Chaurasiya and oers versus T State of MP. and others, on 09st)?- 1996 [Writ Petition No.2539 of 1 ] {Annextrre P-2] , Learned counsel submits that n View of those o ers, the respondent ought to have considered the se of the petitione also, On the other hand, learned ate counsel submits that during the pendency of the petition, the petiti rs have been removed from service t o e , and in case, the petitioners claimed ularizaon either on the basis of the order passed earler or o the is of parity, the petitioners should approach the competent authority f redressal of their grievance. ln view of the submission e hereinabove, iearned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission this Court to withdraw the instant {aset s S 1 n e S P 0A, 3 a a J bu th h 9 6 i r ca r t gti i n b s o m d man mm Tumane petition with iiberty to file represents claiming regu‘arization on the ground: Upon consideration of oircumst Reserving the liberty as pray Withdrawn. _ “1 , tion before the appropriate authority ;stated in the petition. anoes, permission is granted. ed for, the petition is dismissed as Sd/- i ,Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ' Judge W's ‘éfo’ir mm . wQMW'A} W 200 W/ mmmm L/ WW FMW a; 31Wm