Chattisgarh High Court
Vimal Kumar Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh 14 Cra/908/2014 ... on 19 May, 2020
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1807 of 2020
Vimal Kumar Dubey S/o Chandrika Prasad Dubey Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Chiniya, Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj
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 Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Collector District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, District Balrampur Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
6. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Chiniya, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur,
District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri G.R. Miri, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
19/05/2020
1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that he had worked as a Guruji between 10.10.2002 to 01.06.2006 when his services were discontinued.
2
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. The respondents would also while taking a decision keep in mind whether the services of the petitioner are in fact required presently or not.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu