Surajdeo Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 9093 of 2019 • Surajdeo Singh, S/o Late Shiv Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Lodha, Post Lodha, P.S. Chandrapur, Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

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

3. Collector District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

5. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Lodha, Block Ramchandrapur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Shri Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 08/11/2019

1. Heard.

2. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that he had worked as a Guruji between 15.09.2003 to 29.04.2006 when his services were discontinued.

3. 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.

4. On a query being put to the counsel for the petitioner, he stated 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. The respondents would also while taking a decision keep in mind whether the services of the petitioner are in fact required presently or not.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti