HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’b1e shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. w. p. (s) no. 2317 OF 2005 Peu'tioner : Bharat Lal Chandravanshi, aged . [7. ; about 35 years, Son of Shri Hikhimm Chandravanshi, Resident of Village Khapri, Post-Chachedi, Tahsil— Kawaniha, Distt.- Rajnandgaon. Versus State of M.P. Through Secretary, School Education Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Commissioner, Public instructions, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhiopal (M.P.). 3. The Director Public Instructions, School Education Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.). 4. The Joint Director, Public Instructions, Respondents Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C. G.). Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the respondents/ State. ORAL ORDER ( 10th January, 2006) Heard. . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was employed on ad-hoc basis as Upper Division Teacher by the respondents and posted at Government Higher Secondaly School, Fosterpur, Tahsil—Mungeli, District-Bilaspur. . Vide order dated 30.4.1983 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Fosterpur Tahsi1~Mungeli, District—Bilaspur, service of the petitioner came to an end on The ground that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis and his service was not required and as such the service was discontinued w.e.f. 30.4. 1983. .The petitioner has filed this pen'tion I before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at ‘Raipur on 28.10.1997 praying that the respondents be directed to re—examine the case of the petitioner and reinstate on the post of Upper Division Teacher, subject to availability of the vacancy and further subject to suitability of the petitioner for appoinunent on the post of Upper Division Teacher. . The petitioner was appointed on ad—hoc basis for a certain period and service of the petitioner was dispensed with as no longer required, as such the pen‘tioner has no right to continue on the post of Upper Division Teacher. However, at this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be granted liberty to move the authorities by way of representation and respondents be J‘Mtua dimcted to consider the same, in accordance with law, to which leaxned counsel for the respondents have no objection. . Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised. If such repxesentation is made, the respondents am directed to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, as early as possible. . In View of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd!_ atish K Agniimtn I t Aguage _‘,_- S