^.:!'ii;l l..; i ^ HiQH COURT OP CHHATriSQARH: BiLASPUR WnLPetition (S) No. 1995 of2Q^ Petstioner Respondents Rupanand Naik, son of Shri Resham Lal Naik, jaged about 28 years, ocpupation Ex- Gunjji, Under the Educatlon Guarantee Sheme, at Bishwashpur, Pandaripani, Post Bamnanj; vja - Jagdlsnpun P.S, Basna, TahsiSi and District Mahasamund (CG). Versus 1) State pf Chhattisgarh,! through Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Dau Katyan Singh1 Bhawan, Ralpur (CG). 2) Chief Executive Offioer - Ziia Panohayat Raipur(CG). | 3) Chief Executive OfRoer,j Janpad Panchayat, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). 4) Gram Panchayat, Paradhiya Saraipali, Vikas Khand - Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of india.) SB: Hon'bieMr. Satlsh K.Agnlhotrl, J. Preseiit Shri Abhay Tiwari, .counse) forthe petjtioner Shri AiokBakshJ, Govt^ A?ivocate fortheState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7th day of IVIay,20€») With consent of learned counsel appearing for both the part:ies,the matter is heard flnaiiy. 2) Leamed counset apptearihg for the petitloner submits^that the petitioner was appointed as Gurujis for one academic session. The services of the petitioner were discontinued after one year. 3) it appears that appointment ofthe petitJoner as Gurujis was ;not in accordance , with the Constitutional Soheme even otherwise, nis appoihtment was fbr one academic session and as such, the petltioner has no rightto contjnue in service orto be reappointed again in the next academlc session; MBSSN9!WWi!BWB— 'v j Raju - z- 4) It is further contended by iearned counsel for the petitioner that simiiarly situated Gurujis have been considered by the concerned Coiiector and they on belng found fit, have been appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade i 11. 5) it is prayed by learned counsei for the petitioner that the petitioner be granted iiberty to make representation to the concerned authority and tneconcerned authority may be directed to consider cases of the petitioner for appolntment as Shiksha Karmi Grade lii on his being found othen^is.e qualified and fit for appointment on its cwn merit and In accordance with law, to which learned counse! appearing for the respondents/State has no objection. 6) For the atorementsoned reasons, this petition is dlsposed of with the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. i ^_./ 1 Sarish KAgnihotri | Judge |