:v' ^ \l^' & 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (rC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. 144^ /2QQ5 PETITIONER .,.<,1^- ^f^^ •-•"".^•""" ...-*°^ ^^: '^^·c^^ VERSUS Manik Lal Dadsena (Jaiswal), aged about 21 (Presently 46) years, son of Shri Ghuna Ram Dadsena, Ex-Adhoc Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School - Manki, North Lormi, Tah. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), r/o. Tilakpur, Post Dindori,Bilaspur. C.G. RESPONDENTS 4. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director/ Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The District Education Officer, Education Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) The State of Madhya Pradesh through : the Secretary, Department of Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,£^ c^ -co^ ^;^^ ^to^ XI-HC-22 3^?!TFn?FT, SrftW^, ^W^ 3TI^T°FT f^Twa-n^T ^qW^cT ,.V<b ITTO^TSW^ OT^T^cTTW^N ^..u..v..).^^ ,,,^ 5-V Icj^ wrf^sfrTWRff^'te^t^l^ ^)3^T3TI^T 13-4-2005 Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsel for|the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Agrawai, Panel La^yer for the State. Heard both the counset. The case of the petjtjoner|is that in the year 1981 the Education Department of the erstwhile State |of Madhya Pradesh conducted a test for »- appointment of ad-hoc Assistantl Teachers in the Government Primary Schools. In that test the petition^ month. Howover, the sen/ices of r was setected and accordingly, he was appointed for a period of three m|onths on a fixed salary of Rs.300/- per ie petitionor were discontinued and the vacancy, which arose on accounjt of discontinuation of the petttioner's semces, was fitted by the State|of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the ipetjtioner js regularty making repre|sentations for consiclering the petitioner |for appointment on the post of Teacl|ier. Further case of the petitioner is that jn the year 1997 the erstwhile State t»fM.P. took a dedsion to appoint ad-hoc sachers jn place of Shiksha Karmi, but the same is not bejng impiemented ?y the Stete of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the petiti^ner submits that the petitioner may be tiljowed to make a representation| to respondent No.2 raising all his Irievances and respondent No.2 be ^irected to ciecide his representation, to ijch jearned counsel for the State ofphhattisgarh has no objection. Having heard iearned counsel for the parties and having regard to the jicts and circumstances of the cas^, the petitioner is allowed tp make a d^tailed representation to respondent JMo.2 within ten days from today raising a|l his grievances, and in turn, respo^dent No.2 is directed to consider the r^presentation made by the petitioner ^nd decide the same within a penod. ie receipt ofthe representation in an ^l XI-HC-22 WWfTWW^ ^^ ^I^Krl^, ^Tn<rijKo, i^^ll^^i ^:s&w)./^^ 2005^ ^-^ 3TT^T^T f^t^3n^r 5b^[cb^f^T 1-- 3TI^T 5^<TTW ^f5cT ^ chi<4I^i^-i ^i^^iT^tel:A<Ri<-a< ^3:rf^R'3TT^T manner after considering the grievatices of the petitioner, In accordance with law. | ' With the direction aforesaid, tl|ie petition stands disposed of. Consequentty, M.(W.)P.No^ 111/2005 and IANo.2716/2005 also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifie<?copy ofthis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge