Binod Kumar Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 9208 of 2019 • Binod Kumar Soni, S/o Shiva Shankar Prasad Soni, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Pandrapath, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

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

3. Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Pandrapath, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Shri Alok Bakshi, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 13/11/2019

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 2003 to 2005 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