High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/312/2017disposed off

Resham Lal Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.312 of 2017 Resham Lal Chouhan S/o Laxman Lal Chouhan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village & P.O. Khongsa, Block Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

3. Director, Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG)

5. Block Executive Officer, Block Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr.K.P.Sahu, Advocate For Res.No.1, 2, 3 and 5 :

Mr.Ashish Surana, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Order on Board 19/1/2017

1. The petitioner was earlier temporarily engaged to work as a Teacher in the school run by Janbhagidari Samiti. He is 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 8.1.2017 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 post of the teacher has been filled up in accordance with the relevant service rules, the respondents cannot be directed to be absorbed 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).1

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 off. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge B/- (1996) 7 SCC 134