t~Ai00 .^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH 03 ii:i---T^ WRIT PETITION N0. 1^2:'^- /2005 PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS Versus t.^~ Narayan Prasad Gupta, S/o. Netram Gupta,, aged about 49 years, At present resident of Village-Pendri, Post Kunda Tah.Pandariya, Dist. Kawardha (C.G.). ^•••v...^r ^y.^Y ^%^v< ^l ^"::\.^ ^' ]\ ^ ^•- 0-" :-^~ L.-,V.;SY^^ yit^ ^ 1) StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.). r 2) Director of Public Instructions, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Directorate of Public Instructions, (DPI Office) Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) / 3) Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Education Department, Education District Bilaspur, (C.G.). ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HG—78 ^IINCTS WW^ "s^ '^ipn^R, ^tii^Ko, fadi^y ^^...^....)S3l\Q^... ^T^T TT^T (^f^^T) ^T^T^T'f^lW ^^ ^?T^¥?^Rte' |h ^ ^. ^^m^liTr.^l^! .25.4.2005 Mr. Alok Nigam, counsel for Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel La- Heard. The case of the petitione! Department of erstwhile State of ft Assistant Teachers in the Govei petitioner was selected and accord period of three months. Howe^ discontinued and vacanc;^ which the petitioner?s services was fill< petitioner is regularly making rep] the year 1997 the erstwhile State teachers in place of Shiksha Karni State ofChhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the allowed to make a representation and respondent No.2 be directed t c-ounsel for the respondent has no| Having heard learned couj facts and circumstances of the representation within a period 4 raising all his grievances and in t^ -^ ^^[RmaiT^r |:he petitioner. ^yer for the State. is that in the year 1981 the Education [.P. conducted a test for the appointment of |iment Primary Schools. In that test the Jngly^ he was appointed on daily wages for a ir, tlie services of the petitioner were ferises on account of the discontinuation of |d by the State of M.P. Thereafter, the esentations for considering the petitioner to the appointment on the post of tea^her. Further case of the petitioner is that in f M.P, took a decision to appoint the ad-hoc but sanie is not being implemented by the >etitioner submits that petitioner may be o respondent No.2 raising all his grievances decide his representation, to which learned Ajection. isel for the parties aiid having regard to the Dase, the petitioner is allowed to make a ten days from today to respondent No.2 rn respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioiier ^fthin another three months from the date of receipt of the representation aftei] petitioner in accordance with law. With the direction aforesai<j Consequently, I.A. Nos.29^ Certified copy as per rules. considering all the grievances raised by the , the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge ^\ ^-