I— S'rB-^ .^ S8R4S BEFORE THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) * WRITPETITIONNO./"^^ /2006 PETITIONER -t'1 y- ^^ <p°^ / .f^/^/ ^\*/ ^?/^' / ^--w ^/^ ^.^ '.•' RESPONDENTS f- ^ "'^ / r\'.4> c?<te <^-'--> ..^^^^' •.^^'y&> G^' '^- rf^0- '^. '^. "^ '^'N;-- ^' / Kashinath Rani, son of late Vasudeo aged about 62 years, working as Pruicipal, Indira Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Raia nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Resident of Shanti Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh fhrough - the Secretary, Departraent of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Chhattisgarh Secretariat, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). The Director (Schogt Education) Distt Raipur (C.G.) 3. Distt Education Ofiicer, distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, through - its President Ram Singh, resident of Ram Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) /' "v. ^. ':''<. X WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT / WRITS, ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTION' / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARY / PROHIBITION ETC. .^' ;.\ tl HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiyVSPUR W.P. No. 1596 of 2006 Petitioner Kashmath Ram Versus Respondents Stete of Chhattisgarh and others Sixi^le Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agaihotei. Shri Arul Paswan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for tiie respondents No. 1 to 3. None for fhe respondeat No. 4. ORAL ORDER (29th March, 2006) The foUowiag order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. The petitioner was eniptoyed as Teacher. Thereafter he was prouioted to the post of Principal in tbe year 1973, According to the petitioner, he has been teachiug studeuts of class 9th, 10th, IIth and 12th also, time to tune. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction. that the Divisional Education. Of5cer be directed to extend the period of service of the petitioner to 65 years in view of the Circular dated 9.12.1974. The said circular provides fhat keepiag in view the high educatioual quali&cation and physical cdndition of fhe Teacher, his services may be extended up to the age of65 years froin the age of62 years, The petitioner does not acquire any r^ht, by virtue of fhe circular dated 9.12.1974, as this is for the Govenuaent to consider the qualification and physical condition of fhe einployee before granting extensioa of service up to 3 years that too in flie public interest. It appears fhat the petitioner has not been granted fr' extension ofservice up to 65 years. The respondents-State cannot be directed to consider fhe case of the petitioner and grant extension of service by three yeara, as prayed for by the petitioner ia fhis petition. 3. Por the reasons stated-above, no case has been made out for interference by this Court. The petition fails and is disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge <