INSLE BENI IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION (St No. 53 /200^fS.B.l PETITIQNER .^,^-r'":"S^e^ .^^i^r p,e^w- _.^"-" &....-^" ^ p(8^ &atad Ashok Kumar Myuradha S/o Shri Bhajan Ram, Aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Presently posted at Govt. Primary School Lachha, Block & Tah.Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1^( 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Department ofTribal Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2 Comniissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Ambikapur, District- Surguj'a C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1^>-U^6& ^A^^ o-1 •-^^ WIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASWJR W.P. (S<»No. 59 of 2007 Thakur Petitioner : A^lofcTumar Myuradha Versus Respondwits : State of Chhatt-i^arh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K, Agnihotri, J Shri Saurabh Dcuigi, Advocate for Ihe petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey. Pcuwl tawyer for the re^ondents/State. OROER (Passed on 15"' doy of January, 2007) TTie following order of 1+ie Court- is passed by Sdrtish K, Agnihotri, J. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner os well as leamed Panel Loawyer appearin9 for the respondents/State jointly ajbmit that the facts of the present case are similar to that of in W. P. (s) 5976 of 2006 (Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A o'th&rs), w^tich wo« allowed vid®ord&r dated 7th Novemb®r,2006. They further aubmit that the question of taw involved is also 1+ie same. 2. The petitioner wxs initially appointed vide order dated 1.6.1993 (Annexure P/l) as Assistcmt Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs. 600/-. Subsequently, vide order dated 4.8.2005 (Annexure P/2) all the appointments made between 1982-83 to 1994-95 on a fixed pay on the post of Deputy Teacher/Assistant Teacher/Teacher were converted to the regutar c^pointment on completion of two years probation period. Accordingly the petitioner was deenied to have been appointed on probation for a period of two years, 3. In view of the above stated submissions made by leanwd counsel for the parties, the wrjt petition is albwed in terms of -Hie order dated 7th November, 2006 possed by -this Court in W. P. (s) 5976 of 2006. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnibom Judge ;^;'! -fe^f