\ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Pétitioner Smt. Durga Vati Pandéy, ag€d 52 years, msidence of Near Shyam Talldcs, Sanichan' Bazar, Bilaspur. o S e Versus Respondents 1. State f Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, school Education, D. K. . Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. District Education OEcer, Composite Building, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Pnhcipal, St. Josph H.S.School, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). .$ingle Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice $atish K. gnihotri, Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. alid 2. Shii Pankaj Shlivastava, Panel lawyer for the. Respondents N01 Shxi Neeraj Choubey, dvocate for the Respondent No3. ORAL ORDER ( 6th January, 2006) The following order of the Cour was passed by Satish K. mihotri, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petih'oner was appointed as Teacher of ansklit subject by oral order of the Responent No.3. Thereafter the. petitioner was removed after a period of 9 years by oral order. According to the petitioner neither appointment order nor removal order was passed. The petitioner further submits that the services of the petitioner has been removed orally without following the principles of natural justice and as such the oral removal is bad in law and: illegal. i Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3- School in its return, filed on 24.11.2003, admits the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis, in the following terms:- "’ 47" Writ Petition No. 647 0f 2002 A A t S d J >Z§ “A t6mpc>raxy an‘angamant was made to tsach Sanskrit subject on contract bagis Qnly.” It is clear from the reading of the r€tun1/ reply of the: Respondent No.3 that the potitioner was appointed and the petitioner continued to work for some period, though 1t does not speciiy for how much period, the petitioner had worked. It requires mvesdgation, which canxmt be done on the basis of the contren'y aiiidavits filed by the'parties 1'11 this proceeding. Be. that as it may, the petitioner has tiled this petition seekLng a direction againet the respondents to decide the replesentation/appiication Annexure P/2 and P/3 filed before the Respondents No. 2 and 3, respech‘vely, within a stipulated petiod. In View of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are dileeted to consider the representation dated 1.10.2001 (Annexure 13/2), addressed to the Respondent No.2 and the representation dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure PIS), addtessed to the Respondent No.3, within a peliod of six weeks from the date of receipt] pmduetion of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. The peh'tioner would be at liberty to take appropriate. proceedings after her representations are decided by the Respondents No. 2 and 3. Certified copy, as per Rules. e Sd/—~: if!“ J EhddlK.Agnmmnu* Judge Thakur