S.B. fService Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR^fCHHATTISGARH) PETITIONER: Respondents -' ^ ./'avy ^y y WRIT PETITION(S) N0. ^o^ /2010. ^ Tej Kumar Verma, son of Shri D.S.Verma, aged about 45 years, residence of Venna Para, Village, Post and Tahsil District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus - 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Urban Administration and Dvelopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Conunissioner, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. District Education Officer, Bemetara, ^-. —„„„-—„„„- „„„„,„„„, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. <^6V+.,-f^ ,. ^4. Principal Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ?nll!?^^? d WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S) : As inentioned in the Cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTfSl: As mentioned in the Cause title. 3. QRDERSAGAmSTLWHICHTHIS WRIT PETITION IS BEING FILED. WR; W^'iTO i c' s-'yi ?CTW ^ ~S:S( ^wwif^. ®ii)y<|^fc<^|y^ •^HM^SWV-^^^'-^-^-^-^IOO s^<! <fS SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra B 1.7,2010 Shri O.P. Sahu, counsel Shri Satish Gupta, GOV advance copy. Heard. Submission of leamed petitioner earlier worked as during period 1991 to 1999 School, Saja. It is stated that decision vide its order dated teachers, who were earlier tei vide order dated 8th August, ^ time teachers were re-emplc similar treatment, though he It is further submittl (Annexure P-2), District Edi details of the petidoner to th^ dated 9.4.2009, but till appointment. It is submitted Secretary of the Department \j: ^pifepih •wwif4ft^ tfSi^R ^sffim aii^i ohan Shrivastava. J. for the petitioner. L Advocate for the State/respondents, on counsel for the petitioner is that the t)art time teacher (Anshkalin Shikshak) j;ondnuously in Govt. Higher Secondary |later on, Government had taken a policy !7th August, 2008 to re-employ part time niinated, and in implementation thereof, ]008 (Annexure P-1) as many as 177 part yed, but the petitioner was not given vas also entitled for such consideration. id that vide Memo dated 27.5.2009 ;ation Officer, Bemetara sent relevant Commissioner in response to his memo Pate petitioner has not been given hat petitioner naa.de representation to the ide Annexure P-3. ,—FS/147—2/201B—1,00,000. 4- -k -+1 ^-^r •:l7li3! TSV ""rsri^i Praveen ^ST "4i<iid<i, ®fl1^Ii(c,t^di'yy oIIRWraqi learbed On the other hand, thaf as relevant details of appropriate decision in accoj Competent Authority. In view of the subml No.2/Commissioner Public appropriate decision in the claim for appointnient as part| tind'iih ^llNcif ^f fe^t <F'I<$K ^'STfimamRT counsel for the respondents submits tjhe petitioner have been forwarded, an 1'dance with law shall be taken by the [ssions made hereinabove, respondent [nstructions, Chhattisgarh, shall take c^.se of the petitioner with regard to his ttime teacher. i In case petitioner sub4nits detailed representation along with copy of the petition and this t?rder to respondent No.2/Commissioner Public Instructions, with a coj)y of respondent No.3, the same shall be decided in accordance with lejw within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such represe^itation. With the aforesaid direc^ion, the petition is finally disposed off. It is made clear that thi; the merits of the case. Court has not expressed any opinion on Sd-/ ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge wra'B.^5fNgi«iT5'B',Tsi'-ri<Frra'—t's/147—2/201(1—1,00,000. 4-