Nand Kumar Ayam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1053 of 2020 • Nand Kumar Ayam S/o Late Shri Bagar Sai Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Padauli, Post And Police Station Chalgali, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

2. Secretary School Education Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

3. Collector, Balrampur, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

5. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dongaro, Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Advocate along with Mr.

Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For State :

Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 18.02.2020

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that he had worked as a Guruji between 01.09.2003 to April, 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 petitioners, 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 put to the 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 that 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. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge yasmin/ashu