Hitendra Kumar Tanna And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.6976 of 2009

1. Hitendra Tanna, S/o Late Shri Dhiraj Lal Tanna, Aged about 37 years, R/o 113 (B)-Arya Nagar, Durg (CG)

2. Himanshu Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Aged about 38 years, R/o Chhattisgarh Colony, Near Pump House 03, Vidhyut Nagar, P.O. Borsi Colony Durg (CG)

3. Simachal Behra, S/o Shri S.B.Behra, Aged about 41 years, R/o Qtr. No.6/F, Sector 11, Street No.17, Zone-1, Bhlai Nagar, District Durg (CG)

4. Punu Ram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Sohag Ram Sahu, Aged about 43 years, Ward No.6, Rly. Nayapara, Sanjay Nagar, Mahasamund (CG)

5. Astam Kumar Behra, S/o Shri Satya Badi Behra, Aged about 37 years, R/o House No.422, Plot No.626, Model Town, Post Nehru Nagar, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (CG)

6. Anil Kumar Hardel, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Hardel, Aged about 38 years, R/o Aurabhatha, Balod, Post Balod, District Durg (CG) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

2. Director, Public Instructions, Raipur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr.Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr.Shashank Thakur, G.A.

For Interveners :

Mr.R.K.Kesharwani and Mr.Prakash Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 3/1/2018

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier the petitioners were working as part-time vocational teacher, thereafter they applied for the post of Lecturer, they were called for interview, they appeared in the interview, but instead of appointing them on the post of Lecturer, they have been appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 8.10.2008 and 26.9.2008 respectively, whereas

they were entitled to be appointed on the post of Lecturer or in alternative on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circular dated 23.5.1998 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, direction be issued to the respondents for their consideration on the post of Lecturer or in alternative on the post of Lab Assistant.

2. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State would submit that the petitioners have accepted their appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, therefore, they are not entitled to be considered on the post of Lecturer. He would further submit that now the post of Lecturer is appointed by direct recruitment.

3. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for the post of Lecturer or in alternative on the post of Lab Assistant strictly in accordance with law in the light of rules and regulations applicable within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after hearing all affected parties including the interveners. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed off. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/-