IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. l2>S^ /2005 PETITIQNER Dheeraj Das Manikpuri,Son of Meelan -Das Manikpuri, aged about 25 (presently 47) years, Assistant Teacher Government Primary School - South Bilha, Tah. Bilha; Distt. Bilaspur (CG), resident of Kudydan, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS RESPONEENTS '%5' v^-^ tT€^3^ ^ts-i^^ ^ys^? Eyh.^ •"*"—^- |^:';'1<3'3S\ tek^. The State ofChhattisgarh, thrbugh : the Secretary, Department of Educatiion, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalhalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) The DistriGt EduGation Qffieer, Education Djstt. • Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) The State of Madhya PradSsh through : the Secretgry, Department of Educatlon, Valla!bh BBawan, • Bhgpal (Mayhya Pradesh). WRIT PETITIQN UISl©E^jfltlffi[(2l..SSS2©/Z27OBffil-IE 4. i_„; CQNtffitO'T'llNicWWM® K XI-HC-22 sn^rw f^fNisn^r siiroylen 3ST '<IW ]<•!•!<, ®Tn.H'IS,(Sjcliuy sn^Tq^g? t<INrtlsh*<l* •"••••••••••••-••-• g-^ 200 Rre^ ^ 3fl^l ^WIWHfN U .4.2005 ShriA.N. Bhakta, Shri. AMul Agrawal, Heard. The case of the p^ Education Departnient ofe^ the appoiatinent of ad-ho^ Priinary Schools. In thatl accordingly, he was apppial salaiy ofRs.300/- per mon^ were discontmued and vsl dlscontinuation of the M.P, Thereafter, fhe petitio^ coiisidering the petitioner ti\ Furfher case of fhe petitior| State of M,P. took a decisic^ of Shiksha Karmi but sauiel Chhatdsgarh. Leana.ed couiisel for be allowed to inake a repr^ his grievances aud respo| lepresentation, to which objection. Haviag heard regard to fhe facts and cir\ aUowed to inake a coi^nsel for the petitioner. P^nel Lawyer for ftie State. represei|itatii <tii<<t<~f41-) WRit'ff tetA <Ri^i< ^arf^iTsn^r jdtioner is that in fhe year 1979 the tstwhile State of M.P. conducted a test for Assistant Teachers ia fhe Govenunent test fhe petitioaer was selected aad jed for a period offhree laonths on a fixed (h, However, the services of tfae petitioner (cancy which arises on account of the petiljioner's services was fiUed by the State of |er is regularly inaking representations for j> fhe appoiatnient on the post of teacher. ler is that in the vear 1997 the erstwhile ^i to appoint the ad-hoc teachers in. place is not beiag implemented by the State of tbe :pF^setftatii ipo^ident leibmed petitioner subiaits that petitioner naay tftation to respondeut No.2 raisiug all No.2 be directed to decide his counsel for the resp®ndenthas ao leamled counsel for fhe parties and havin^ |;iunstances of the case, the petitioner is )resei(Ltation wifhin a period often.days from XI-HC-22 3^r •<ii<ii<i<i, a-cfl+ns, Ridiyy W^IMach *iw<ii stiH><*i """"""""'"" W^ 200 &G sn^rqii R-fi+sn^r StifilXflsfl •SfI^TWIRKflfttT today to respondent No.: respondent No.2 is direc petitioner within another representation after consj petitioner ia accordance Witti the direction afi] Consequently, M..W 2632/05 also stand dispos| Certified copy as per| tDiree wilth <hl<l(f1<fl') IWftl fffe^ <R|«.K ^isri^tTsn^i raising all his grievances and ia tiim ^ed to decide the represeutatioii of the uiouths from the date ofreceiptoffhe ^ 'ns^dering aU the grievances raised by the law. fi^resaid, the petition stands disposed of. ?|.)P.No. 1076/05 & I,A. No.2631/05 Ss fcd of, Indes. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge