1. s SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(S)NO. '^2jc> QF 2011 PETITIONER 1» ^^ ^v-%^..-<^ ..^ ,^'<^ .^•••'J^ ...-•^ RESPONDENTS Narsingh Dewangan, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Shri Gandhuram Dewangan, Shiksha Karmi Varg-111, Janpad Boys Primary School Lakhram Block Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. c" 3. Director, Panchayat & Social welfare Department , Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) WR!T^ET!TION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title. ^ ^ SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DEWAKER W.P.rSi-NQ. '7219/2011 Narsingh Dewangan versus State of Chhattisearh Others Shri K. S. Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, P.L. for the State. (02.12.2011| Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that initially he was appointed on contract basis for the census work and thereafter circular was issued by the State Government for issuing reguiar appointment to such persons in the Government posts. According to the petitioner, number of similarfy plaoed persons have been appointed as LDC/Assistant Grade-III whereas the petitioner has been appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III which is not a regular govemment post. He turther submits that some of the persons who were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi, later on they too were appointed on reguiar posts of LDC/Assistant Grade-III or equivalent to the said post but the case of fhe petitioner has not been considered. He submits that at this stage, purpose oi filing this petition would be served if direction is issued to the respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation (Anhexure P/6) of the petitioner. State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh detailed representation to the resoondent No.3 and in tum the same would be decided in accordance with iaw. The oresent petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in tum it is expected from the respondent N0.3 to decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. It is mad,e clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at iiberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge