/19^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARB[ AT BULASPUR WritPetf:ecn(S)Np.6$2?of2006 PETIT!ONBEtS : l. Dr. Alok Mishra, aged about 31 years S/o late Shri R.A. Mishra, R/o Main Road, Village Koni, Distt. Bilaspu, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mahendra Kumar Gouaha, aged about 37years, S/o Shri T.P. Gouraha, R/o Killa Ward, Juna/Bilaspur, Near Radhia Krishna Temple, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Mahendra Singh Solanki, aged about 42 yesas, S/o Shri Baldau Singh Solanki, R/o Devendra Nagar, Phase-I, Bilaspur. 4. Anil Kumar Pandey, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri R.K. Pandey, R/o D-44, Vyayapuram Colony, Opp. Science College, Seepat Road Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Dinesh Kumar Tiwan, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Satanand Tiwari, R/o Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS BSS.£O!M)®}TS : 1. The State of Chhattis^A, Through: the Secretary Government ofChhattisgarh, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan,Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Registrar, Gum Ghasi Das University, Koni, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Deaii, Chhatrisgarh lustitute of Medical Sciences, BUaspur, Chhattisgarh. (WSIT PE'nTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSnTUTION OF INDIA) <SB: Hon'bleMr.SatishK.Asnihotri.J.) Present : Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for fhe State/respoiidentNo.l. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondentNo. 2 & 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 6 day ofAugust, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appeariog for the petitioners confmes his submission to the prayer that the recommendation made by the University for considering 50 percent of total posts, working as dailywagers in Class III and IV employees, for regutarization, as per supplementary resolution No. 3 of Executive Councii Meeting dated 18.05.2005 (Annexure P/9), may be considered by the State/respondent. 2. Shri Shrivastava,, learaed counsel appearing for tfae respondent- university submits that a letterto this effeet has already been sent to tbe State Govemment on 01.07.2005 (Annexure R 2/1). It appears tfaat, no order has been passed as on date on the letter dated 01.07.2005 sent by the respondent-university. 3. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, it is expedient that the State Government may pass appropriate order oa the letter dated 01.07.2005, in accordanee with law, on its own merit, as expeditiously as possible, preterably within a period ofthree months. 4. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the basis of retum, submits that Ae matter is under consideration as tfae respondent- institute has been taken over by the State Govemment. He farther submits that the needfal may be doae as stated above, wifhin the stipulated time. 5. In view ofthe foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Salm