Chattisgarh High Court
Motee Lal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh 11 Wps/9904/2019 ... on 29 November, 2019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 9899 of 2019
• Motee Lal Yadav, S/o Gajadhar Prasad Yadav, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Marma, Post Krishna Nagar (Dhamni), 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, Ditrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary, School Education Department, Sate 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 Navadeep, Janpad Panchayat,
Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner Shri G. R. Mirri, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Ravish Verma, GA Hon'ble Justice Shri Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 29/11/2019
1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that he had worked as a Guruji between 01.07.2005 to 30.04.2007 when his services were discontinued.
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.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Nirala