Seema Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 2230 OF 2021 1.

Seema Dubey, W/o Ashish Dubey, aged about 34 years, R/o H.N. 651, Dubey Mobile Pithora, Ward No. 10, Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) 2.

Mohan Lal Dewangan, S/o Sita Ram Dewangan, aged about 52 years, R/o Bharat Mata, Gali Near Trimurti Mandir, Mathpuraina, Sunder Nagar, Bindrawangarh, District Raipur (CG) ... Petitioners versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3.

Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) 4.

District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Harsh Mander Rastogi, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board /04/2021 1.

Present is a Writ Petition whereby Petitioners are claiming for an appropriate direction to Respondents for considering their claim for appointment as Atithi Shikshak in terms of the order of the State Government dated 02.08.2019 and 24.06.2019.

2.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that Petitioners have worked as Vidya Mitaan during the period from 2016 till 2019. However, thereafter their services have been discontinued. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that similarly placed persons earlier had filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 7811/2019 which got disposed of on 01.10.2019 whereby this Court taking into consideration Clause-1 of the said Circular of the State Government dated 02.08.2019 directed the Authorities to consider and decide their claim in terms of the circulars of the State Government. According to learned Counsel for Petitioners, thereafter, there has been no further development taken place till date in spite of there being an order of this Court and they have therefore come to this Court for a fresh direction to Respondents.

3.

Considering the fact that this Court had in the past passed a similar order in a series of writ petitions of identical nature, this Court at this juncture is inclined to pass an order to the extent that the present Petitioners' case be considered by Respondents No. 2 & 4 for being appointed as Atithi Shikshak in terms of any advertisement or recruitment drive which Respondents have initiated in District Mahasamund and subject to Petitioners fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria including educational qualification, the case of Petitioners be considered in terms of the policy of the State Government itself wherein they have mentioned that Vidya Mitaan would be given priority.

4.

Let a decision be taken by Respondents No. 2 & 4 in respect of Petitioners, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

5.

It is made clear that Petitioners, in addition to their claim that they have already made, would also be at liberty to file a fresh representation before Respondents No. 2 & 4 who in turn may consider the claim of Petitioners for any recruitment to be made for the next academic session unless the Circulars stand modified or amended.

6.

Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) sharad JUDGE