Pratap Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 528 of 2020 Pratap Yadav, son of Rambriksha Yadav, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Dindi, Post Salwahi, Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through- The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Secretary School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh,

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh,

5. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dindo, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board -01-2020

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the instant writ petition is that he had worked as Guruji between 02.11.2002 to 30.04.2006 when his services were discontinued.

2. According to the petitioner, some similarly placed persons subsequently had filed a writ petition which stood disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners therein. According to the petitioner, while deciding the representation of those persons, the respondents have granted an

order of appointment in their favour which has prompted the present petitioner to approach this Court now.

3. On a query being made to counsel for the petitioner, he states that he is unaware of the educational qualification of the persons who have been appointed and were similarly placed. The petitioner was also unable to produce any document with which it could be established that without even fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria whether the petitioner could have been granted appointment as a Shiksha Karmi under the respondents.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has made a representation to the authorities, let the authority concerned take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with its merit.

5. It is made clear this this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner or on the merit of the case. The authorities are expected to pass an order purely in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field and take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. This writ petition accordingly stands finally disposed of. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o