BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.2-S33 /2006 PETITIONER •^ ^^<y/ Nwz ^" < /-'?% ^'iryy ^/^ / ^^ ^ Shiv Shankar Sahu, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Rangu Lal Sahu, Ex-ad-hoc Upper Division Teacher, Middle School - Kundel, Magar Road Block, Tah. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^& [^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough - fhe Secretary, ^- Departtnent of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Public Education Pension Bada, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur 3. Distnct Education OfGcer Dist. Education Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Secretary, Department . of School Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sinj^e Beacfa: Hon'ble Shri Satisb K. Agnihotri, J. I^Nl W. P. Vo, 2333 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents Versus Shiv Shankar Sahu. State of Chhatdsgarh and ofhers Shri A.N. Bhakta, coimsel for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Satish Gupta, Depuly Goverament Advocate for the State. ORDBR 1. 3. ( 8^Bay,2006) Accordiag to the petitioner, he was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on Ad-hoc basis at Middle School Mititapur, Vikas Khaad Magarlod, Distnct Dhamtari fiiom September 1981 to November 1982, Januaiy 1983 to Maich 1983. The petitioner filed a petition before the State Admmistorative Tribunal, Jabalpur bearmg O.A. No. 2554/1996. The Tribunal by its order dated 24.6.1997 (Aiinexure P-1) disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to scruttaize cases of each petitioner and if they were found eligibte, they be considered for appojntment The petitioner has filed this petition seeking unpleinentation of the order dated 24.6.1997 passed by the State Adinmistrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2554/1996. &MMnEBMrt?Eb*SUi»*?*»riAim »*ifn[ >t«iiirfnmf(mltiififTTn'-a**a">-(i 4. This petition has been filcd on 30.4.2006 afler a period of niore than 8 years. The petitioner has not inade out a case for condonation of unexplamed, inoidmate delay of inore than 8 years. Rights of the parties aud othcr suuilarty situated candidates inust have been ciystaBized by this time. 5. It is ftirther submitted that the petitioner has niade sevcral representations wliich could not evoke responsc froin fhe respondents. 6. It is weU setUed principle oflaw in view ofthe decisions of fhe Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Warain Mattiar Vs. The State of Bihar And Others, (1973) 1 SCC 811, P.8. Sadasivaswami Vs. State ofTamU Wadu, (1975) I SCC 152, and Karnataka Power CorporaUon Ltd Vs. AMR V.K. Thangappan & AIIR, 2006 AIR SCW 1828, that repeated represcntations cannot justify a belated approach to the Courts, Entertauiing belated approach would unsettle the settled inatters, and the sam.e shoiild be avoided. 7. For the reasons stated above, this petition is disinissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge c^.^