/3 t ^^1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. /44/ /2QQ5 PETITIONER Bahorik Ram Sahu, age about 20 (presently 45) years, son of Kallu Ram Sahu, Ex-Ad-hoc Assistant Teacher, Govt Primary School Dindori, Tah. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur, r/o. Dindori, Lormi, Bilaspur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ..•••'; '^•••£;tA^ ^••••^. ^^ \-••''•/.'f]l -'^ The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The District Education Officer, Education Distt. Bilas^ur (Chhattisgarh) The State of Madhya Pradesh through : the Secretary, Department of Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4. XI-HC-22 3^T ^WW^, s$Tfi<H'|<o, (ct(y||^^< _..1S^.L . HW^i[ $h^sch """"""""'^'y^[ 200 ^ ^ 3TI^T^)T f^TWCT^T ^TW^TfN' 3TT^T5;?cffW:^f?cT 13^1-2005 " Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsei Mr. Akhil AgrawaJ, Panel Heard both the counset. The case of the petitionerl Department of the erstwhile State appointment of ad-hoc Assistant| Schools. In that test the petition^r appointed for a period of three month. However, the semces of| yacancy, whjch arose on accoufit services, was filled by the Stat^ petitjoner is regulariy making for appointment on the post of Tea^ Jn the y©ar1997 tho erstwhile Stat^ teachers in place of Shiksha Karnli by the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the ailowed to make a representati^ grievances and respondent No.2 whlch learned counsei for the Statel Having heard learned coun^el facts and circumstences of the detailed representation to respond^nt ait his grievances, and in turn, representation made by the petitioi|ier three months from the date ofthe <=bi^f^4)Ti ^H^T^te^'<f^<(-4i< ^3^T3TI^T forfhepetjtjoner. Lawfyer for the State. |is that in the year 1981 the Education |of Madhya Pradesh conducted a test for Teachers in the Govemment Primary was s©iect©dand accordingty. he was r^onths on a fixed salary of Rs.300/- per |the petitioner were discontinued and the of discontinuation of the petitioner's of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the repi|esentations for considering the petitioner ij;her. Further case of the petiiioner is that of M.P. took a deciston to appoint ad-hoc i, but the same is not being implemented fcle pe^tioner submits that the petitioner may be >n to respondent No.2 raising atl his directed to decia'e his representetion, to |of Chhattisgarh has no objection. i4^( for the partjes and having regard fo the i, the petitioner is allowed to make a No.2 within ten days from today raising re^pondent No.2 is directed to consider the and decide the same within a period of i|eceipt ofthe represeniation in an objective dase, XI-HC-22 W^T^f I^TWSTI^T 5h^lcb^rf?cT ^8^<<1T^HT^» 3^ t^l^j(n^, ^Tf1^ll<o, fs|dl^^< ^T^sich ^r ^ 200 S ^TT^r^fT^K^cT 2-4 manner after considering the grie^ iaw. With the direction aforesaidj Consequently, M.(W.)P.^o. 2721/2005 aiso stand disposed of.| Parties are entitled for certif|ed copy ofthis order. chl<4l^41r< ^l^^lTifte^t'i^K-dK ^3Tf^T3TI^T ^ances ofihe petiiioner, in accordance with the petition stands djsposed of. 3.1112/2005, I.A.Nos.2720/2005 and Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge