y -a^ SJ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRITPETITION N0. ^-<^2-1 /2005 PETITIONER ^ Kuleshwar Prasad, son of Shri Mitthu Prasad Sharma, aged about 25(48) years, Ex-Adhoc Primary School, Bhaisa, Dhangaon, R/o. Padavpara, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.).G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. fc ....^i^ •^^"''' aN.^'"" ;^.3. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) District Education Officer, Education Distt. Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ^ 4. State of Madhya Pradesh through : the Secretary, Department pf Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopat (M.P.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CONJ rUTION OF INDIA *11*101 ap^TT^F ^ScT'-<4i^io)^,yal1<-i<i<s, Rirtwy^ .(N.:5).^0?T.\. OT^^T^Tf^Tfcp ?[STT3T^$T^HTci) 3TT^?T q^cp (^c|ij<s|c£;) ^200^ B^nWr^rf^T OT^^T petition|er expen^nce 13,6.2005 Shri M.K, Bhaduri, coi4 Shri Paiikaj Shriv^ State/respondeuts No. 1 to Heard. The case of tlie Assistaat Teacher vide order) concenied iiistitution on 14). post tiU 13.12.1981. The Annexure P- 1 aad an filed as Annexure P- 2, Learned cozuisel for completion of the aforesaid letter, Annexure P-1, tlie ^ extended and tlie petitioner i| Leanied counsel for tli|( may be given to the petitioner for his re-^ petitioner may be taken in jo^: On fhe other haad, le4 appoiatiaent order, Anuexi'1 appoiatment was for a.perio^. whichever is earlier and on| order, the petitioner ijer is tliat he. was appoin.ted as adhoc dated 5.fi9.1981. He joined in tlie .9.1981 aad contuiued 011 tlie said Ippouitment letter has been filed as certificate to this effect has been responcy.ent -appoiiit|ment J0|3 com.plet|ed cpl^fc^41r1 ^l^oT^?f^^?l ^rf^F^R ^3rf^T3TT^^T |nsel for the petitiouer, l.stava, Paael Law}Ter for the 1 on advan.ee copy. fhe petitioner subnxits th.at after Iperiod in. tei-ms of the appoiiitment ^eivices of tlie petitioner were not ^ outofjob smce 31.12.1981. petitioner subioits that a direction |ents for considering the case of the oii the said post so tliat, the agam., ^rn.ed Paael La^vyer subniits that the Ire P-1 itself shows fh.at the said of 3 raontlis or untU fuilher orders, tlie basis of the said appoiDLtaient the tenure of 3 m.ouths and tiiere SP/FS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 ^c^^^fl^Ei, V>T\\i<V\Q, RrtK-l^ *ll+l«a^^TTcF 3TR'$T^Tf^rtc^ ^snw^^T^w^ sunlta K; <^7 ^ / ^7 3TT^9T q^P (l3crfg6nS) ^200 ^^TSR"d^T3TT^5T _-2^— is uo nexus beteveen the cl^-i appouitjaient letter issued in| I have heard leanied d< Adinlttedly, the pGtiti<t fixed period of3 months wh^ It appears tliat after m.ade any effort for gettji appouitraent aad ultimately ] com.mg with this writ petiti(] period of 25 yeai's has not b| petition. The age of the peii^ as 48 yeai's. ^o provisions oflaw tj Court on tlie basis which ai case of the petitioner caii iiicliried to entertaio. tliis pe^ yeai's, the petition has no m| Consequently, I.A.N 1601/2005 staad disposed cbl^fc!>41^^l^c')Y ^[^1<1 ^Rl>(-ci>( ^3lf^T3II^?T ^mi of re-appoiataient aad the earUer favouroftlie petitioner. )unsel for the parties at lengtli. >ner was given mi appoiatsiient for a ch he completed on 13.12.1981. (he yeai' 1981, tlie petitioner has not iig his case, consideriiig for re- after a lapse ofabout 25 years, he is >n for seekuig such a direction. The sen explaiaed by the petitioner in the |:ioner in tlie petition has been shown tave been brought to the notice of this jiy siich du'ection for considemig the )e issued iii his favour, I am. not 1-itiou at fhis stage after a lapse of 25 ?rits. It is dismissed sunimarily. Ijo. 3800/2005 aiid M.W.P.No. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge