' IN THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (‘HHATTISGARH 2349 WRIT PETITION No. /2006 PETITIONER /, Ramkirtan Kashyap S/o- Dileshwar Prasad Kashyap, Aged about - 29 years, occupation — Samvida Shikshak Class — III, R/o- Village — Karra, Post Officer— Hardihari (S) Tehsil and Police Station — Navagarh, Distt— Ianjgir— Champa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh 1. Through — The Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, The Chief Executive Officer Ianpad Panchayat Navagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Charnpa (C.G.) District Education Officer Ianjgir District Ianjgir - Champa (CG) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC-78 WW,W¥W¢ W ? / In 200$ WW(W) mamm WWW WMEWW %ax%wan%m Wwm 23-5-2006 Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Fatal, counsel for the petitioner. ‘ Mr. Satish Gupm, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents, No.1 & 3. Heard both the counset. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition under Articie r 226/227 of the Constitution of In ia is that he is not being made Shikeha i rlent order dated 23-4-2005. s that he is working as Samvida Shiksha Karmi Class-ill in Primary School, Bhada. Gram Panchayat: Bhada, J Panchayat: Navagarh. under or dated 28-8-2003 (Annexure P-1) issu by the Chief Executive Ofhcer, Ja pad Panchayat: Navagarh, Janjgir. Vide Government order dated 23-4-2 it has been decided to convert the post of Samvida Shiksha Karmi to the ost of Shiksha Karmi and it was directed that the concerned Panchayat to onvert the Samvida Shiksha Karmi to the post of Shiksha Karmi. The Ja pad Panchayat in pursuance of the said order converted the Samvida Shi sha Karmi to the post of Shiksha Karmi, The petitioner Karmi in pursuance of the Govern V The case of the petitioner but the petitioner's case has not been considered. approached the concerned autho ities, but they did not take any action on which the petitioner tiled a represe tation. copy of which is Annexure P—3, but still nothing has been done. Learned counsel ' for th petitioner submits that in the given circumstances. the petitioner ma be allowed to make a representation ‘to respondent No.2 and in turn. re pondent No.2 be directed to decide the same, to which Mr. Gupta, le med counsel appearing for the State] respondents No.1 & 3, has no obje tion. a d e 0 XI—HC—78 W W , W , W Wm ”EPQ‘Eé‘Cl . a1 2006 WW(W) mwféaw WWW £~g WW§WW mmwanéw ~ a“ éawm Soma Having heard learned couqsel for the parties and having perused the appointment order of the petitior er (Annexure P—1), as we" as the order dated 12-5-2005 (Annexure P-E) and the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P-3), the prayer made by Ieamed counsel for the petitioner is jList, fair and reasonab . Therefore, without expressi g any observation on merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed to make representation to respondent No.2 within 15 days from today and respo dent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner, in accordance with lawiand decide the same within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt. With the direction aforesaid. the petition stands disposed‘ Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. ‘ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge g