Single Bgnch HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR g6 M?) /2011 Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, S/o. Late Ram Awatar Shrivastava, aged about 41 years, R/o. Vi11age Rikhi, Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja (C.G.) Ramsingh, S/o. A1am Sai, aged about 47 years, R/o. Village Udaipur, Baigapara, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) E HON’BLE IN TH W.P.(S) No. (1] PETITIONERS Shivratri Mishra, S/o. Jagopan Mishra, aged about 4o years, R/o. ‘village Maheshpur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) /2] Director, Directorate, Raipur, Public District Education, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) Assistant Block Education Officer, Block Udaipur, Education District, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) /3] /4] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIQNEM @ D\ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR r” . SB : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER' w.p.gs,.no. 5548/2011 PETITIONER Axv'ind Kumar Shn’vasfava 8r. Others RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 85 Others Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.NahaRoy, P.L. for the State. “WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA oRnER (19.09.201 1) Gn'evance of the petiiionem in {he present petition is that initially they were appointed as Instructors in the Aupchan'ketiar Shiksha Kendra on diU'erent dates and they worked till the year 1995. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that as per the policy decision of the State Govemment the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the post of contract teachers. He further submits that purpose of nling this petition would he served if dixection is issued to the resp. No.3 to consider the case of these petitioners in accordance with law. On the other hand State counsel submits that the petitioners have absolutely no right to be considered for the post of Contract teachers and therefore this petition itself is not maintainable. Be that as it may; in the case of hling any representation by the petitioners, the respondent No.3 may decide the same in accordance with law considering all the aspects ofthe case. lt is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the nierits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to td’ecide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ‘ \