1. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.Gl W.P.(S)NO ^^o^ OF 2011 A PETITIONER ,n^?/ ^^ ^// '<^-' yfrv RESPONDENTS Ramendra Kashyap, aged about 44 years, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Kashyap, Shiksha Karmi Varg-111, Government Primary School Singhari Block Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1." State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2.r' Director, Panchayat & Social welfare Department , Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) ^.^r/ 3. The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PARTLCUL&ns^^"" SB _:_HOK'BLS MR.JUSTICB PRI-TmKER DIWAKER 7i Petitloaer yersus Sai'nendra Kashye State of Chhattisgarh Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. (14.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that initiaily he was appointed on contract basis for the census work and thereafter circuiar was issued by the State Govemment for issuing regular appointment to such persons in the Oovemrnent posts. According to the petitioner, number of similarly placed persons have been appointed as LDC/Assistant Grade-ISI whereas the petitioner has been appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III which is not a regular government post. He fui-ther submits that some of the persons who were initialiy appointed as Shiksha Karmi, later on they too were appointed on reeular posts of LDC/Assistant Grade-III or equivalent to the said post biit the case of the petitioner has not been considered. He submits that at this stage, purpose of filing this petition would be served if direction is issued to the respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation (Annexure P/6) of the petitioner. State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh detaiied representation to the respondent No.3 an.d in turn the same wouid be decided in accordance with law. T'he present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation within rwo weeks from the da.tc of receipt of copy of this order and in turn it is expected from the respondent N0.3 to decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with iaw. It is mafie ciear that this court has not exoressed anv opinion on the merits of the case and the authority conceined would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law.r—-^-~ ~ PritiRker Diwakei- ' .Judge !.