"':mic^ r- ^\s^l^T. ITS THE HIGH GODRT 0?_JTJDICATUj:(S ^S BILA;3PTJB_(e3g^rEISG.&ttai IffilT Psn2ION_ Ho^'So_q^,__OF_20Q5, PSTIIlOHBBs RESPOmEtiIS ,^..-- r1 (?)' .^v^? ^;^> ^•' ^^i K €^ ^•" <*. 't-''' ^'. f w 'y5 "\ Santosa Komar Upadbyaya, son of Irilokinath Upadayaya, a-ged about 28 years, resident of Sitapur, district Sarguja'(G.G). ?s. 1. State of Gahattisgara:through Secretary, School Education Departaent, D.K.^aa'u'an,Saipiu' (G.G). 2. State of G'ahattisgarnstbroygh Secretary, PaHeaayat and Welfare ., B .K.Bhai,TOa,Baxpur(G.S) 3. Collecfcor, AinbikagHrCG.G) k-. Caief Executxve Officer, Nagar Paneaayat, Sitapur, dist.Sarguja(G.G) ?• Co-ordinator, Sarva Shifcsha Abhiyan, distriet Am'bitea-pur(C. G). 6. Secretary, Gram Panehaya't,Bharampur, P.3. Si-fcapur,dlst.Aml3ikapur(G.G). 7- Assistant Gommissioner, Iribal Welfare, AmMkapur (C.G). WKIT PBIITION TOBBB AB2IGLE.226 / 227 GF TBS GOSSSITOTIOg OF INBIA ^T^'SS^; i^f^C fi OtS^. @) H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 3006 of 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya State of Chhaft'sgarh and others Dr Shailesh Ahuja courisel for the petitioner. Shri A.N. Naha Roy PL fqr the respondents 1 to 3/State. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava counsel for respondent No.4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (27.08.2011) From the pleadings and documents filed by the parties it appears that on 5.8.1999 he was given temporary assignment on the post of Guruji under "Shiksha Guarantee Yojna" and he continued as such for a period of seven months. This assignment of the petitioner appears to be against the post basically meant for the candidates belonging to scheduled tribe category. It is also revealed that certain correspondences were also made by the officers to accommodate the petitioner against some vacant post but as of now he could not be appointed against any post. Petitioner has also made a prayer that the authorities should have complied with the correspondences (Annexures P-5 to P-7) and accordingly appointed him on the post of Guruji and given arrears of salary. 2. Counsel for the respondent/State points out that the post of Guruji has been abolished and that as the petitioner has worked only for a few months, he has no right whatsoever to get any regular appointment either as Guruji or as Shiksha Karmi. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the respondents by making proper rT-""-'^1"'"^" :L \ t' cso representation and in that event his case may be directed to be considered sympathetically. 4. State counsel opposes this prayer of the petitioner saying that he has no right whatsoever of regular appointment as the post of Guruji itself has been abolished. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief prayed for by him for the reason that his appointment was quite temporary, that he has worked only for seven months and that the post of Guruji itself has been abolished. However, the competent authority may consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. of. In view ofwhat has been stated above, the petition is disposed Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge /•