High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1347/2017disposed off

Anil Kumar Bhargav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-03-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1347 of 2017 Anil Kumar Bhargav S/o Shri Ram Milan Bhargav, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Manjhgaon, P.O. Semariya, Block Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distirct Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Director, Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri KP Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri SP Kale, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 21/03/2017

1. The Petitioner was earlier temporarily engaged to work as a Teacher in the school run by Janbhagidari Samiti. He was not appointed in accordance with any rules. After increasing the strength of the students, the school was upgraded as Government School and services of the Petitioner have been dispensed with and regular teacher to teach in that school has already been appointed.

2. Now the Petitioner has filed this writ petition on 9.3.2017 claiming that the State Government be directed to absorb the services of the Petitioner in which he was working.

3. Since the school run by the Janbhagidari Samiti has now been closed and school has been upgraded as Government School and the post of Teacher has been filled up in accordance with the relevant service rules, the Respondents cannot be directed to absorb the services of the Petitioner by

way of issuance of writ contrary to the rules.

4. It is well settled law that absorption of a person not appointed in accordance with the rules would result in denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment to other eligible candidates for public office (See Union of India and others Vs. Kishan Gopal Vyas, reported in 1996 (7) SCC 134).

5. However, if the advertisement is issued for recruitment for the post of Teacher, the Petitioner is at liberty to apply for the said post and to appear in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (P.Sam Koshy) Judge inder