I’N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) $§§x§€3iE EEETmH WRIT PETITION NO. [gz( /2005 Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER I Ashok Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Ghurau Prasad Sharma aged 24 (presently 47) years, Ad-hoc Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School — Leelapur, Tah. Lormi,» Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), resident of’ Gondpara, Bilaspur\(C.G.) Q;@ q§£x VERSUS g» RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. The District Education Officer, Education Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The State of Madhya Pradesh through : the Secretary, Department of Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 5. The Secretary, Department of General Administration, XI-C-22 H WW, mug, WW mm WH%H 5-4-2005 Mr. Pritam Tiwari, counsel for Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt. A vocate for the state/respondents. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner’s case is that e was appointed as ad-hoc teacher in the‘year 1979 for a period of three nths on a fixed salary of Rs.300/- per month and after completion of t tenure, the petitioner’s services were discontinued. Thereafter, for th vacancy which arose on account of discontinuation of the services of th petitioner, appointment of other person was made on that post, and sinc then the petitioner is making regular representations, and theGovernme t is not paying any heed to the request of the petitioner. In the year 1997, de order dated 28-8-1997 (Annexure P- 2), V the erstwhile $tate of Madhy Pradesh issued a circular to all the Departments that the vacancies fo the post of Teacher should be filled by appointment of ad-hoc teachers. But, the State Government ,is not considering the request of the petiti ner. Learned counsel for the peti ioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a representati n to the respondents State and the Government may be directedto c nsider the same and decide after due consideration to which learned G . Advocate has no objection. Having heard learned couns l for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ca , i am of the opinion that it is a’fit case in which the petitioner should be all wed to make a detailed representation raising all his grievances. Theref re, the petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation to respond nt No.2 within a period of 15 days from today, and in turn, respondent N 2 is directed to consider the same and decide in an objective manner aft considering all the points raised by th/e meet/T o h e i o s XI-HC-22 31m am mm mmmw WW wmrvh‘ §Wm mw 42 — 35W31TE3T petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the representation, accordance with Iaw. With the direction aforesai :I, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.1029/2005 and l.A.No.2503/2005 stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. Sci/- Ji L.C.BHADOO