THE HIGH CURT O OF JUICATUE DR AT BILPUR AS (C. MP. No. 5” OE 2001. Hemdas Manikpuri agea about 27 years 3/0. Mr. Anup Das Manikpuri R/b. Village_a Sukli ?0st—Bareli Via— Katgi Distt. Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through— Secretary School Education Department, Raipur (CcG o) . ( ui i \/ l 2)}cmef Exectve nf§cer Janp&d Panchayat Kasdo Dltt Ra p G s. ur (C ) (3§7Block Resoufce Centre Co-ordinator D.P.E.P.(GFFIC ) Block—Kasdol, Distt. Raipur(cjG.) 5(4) Secretary, ‘Gram Panchayat-Sukali 9.0. Bereli, Via-Katgi, Kasdol, Distt. Raipur. (C.G;) WEIT EETETEON‘UNDEK gRTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTXON OF ENDI& .—._.‘.~._,u.—.-.—.‘....—.—...._.—.—.—.-,—.-....—.—.-‘—.—.u._.- . ,, «e. XI-HC-22 25.4.2005 Mr. RS. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar‘Pyasi, P,‘ Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. ( q Heard. v- The petitiormr has x 226/227 of the, Constitutio year 1997 he was appo Guarantce Schamé in Grax Faipur. Respondents paid and usince April 1999 t1] petitionm". LA. No.1569/ 2001 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 83 3 for dismissal of the writ petition in—Which it has been mentioned that on accountof irregularities committed by the petitioner along with other Gurujis i.e. the petitioner and other Gurujis failed to return the answer sheets \ i r :iled on behalf of the petitioner that even Rejoinder has btten thereafter the petitioner redeived training but no other document has been filed to show that sch 301 under Education Guarantee Scheme is still running, Whereas in the application of respondent No.2 éz. 3 it has come that as one govei Panchayat Sukli, therefore, Guarantee Scheme school. L. for the State / respondent No. 1. Dounsel for respondent No.2 6a 3. >referred thiS Wlit petition under Article n of India with the'averments that in the inted ‘ as Guruji under the. Education 1 Panchayat Sukli, Block Kasdol, Disnict salary to the petitioner 1115 to March, 1999 ey are not paying honoran'um to the” of the students, the services 'of the petitioner have beenterminated vide Annexure R-l w.e.f. 24.5. 1999. nment school is already working at Gram they have decided to close the Education XI-HC—22 1n View of tha above, disputed facts are mvolved in this petition, as ths petitioner is claiming; that he is still cohtinuing in service but he is not being paid salaly by the respondents, whereas respondent No.2 £3 3 has mentioned m their application that vide Annexure R—l dated 24,5, 1999 the p: titioner’s services had already been terminatedi Therefore, these disputed questions cannot be gone into axid decidqin the writ jurisdiction, as such the petition is dismissed at the admission stage its 31f. However, if the petitioner wants to pursue hiscase he may avail the remedy available under the law. sal- L.c.BHAD°° Mr Judge (daeia‘w ‘h '1 7