RAMESH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ignoring the default pointed out by the registry, with the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally and disposed off at the motion stage itself.

(2.) The primary grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as "Vidya Mitaan" and has been discharging duties as "Vidya Mitaan" for a couple of years. Now, the relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the State Government for an appropriate policy decision and try to regularize the services of the petitioner under the State Government as a Shiksha Karmi. The further relief of the petitioner is that the State Government while issuing the advertisement for filling up of regular post of Lecturer/Teacher in the State Government should give some preferential treatment to the petitioner for having discharged the duties of Vidya Mitaan.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner fulfills all the minimum requirements of being appointed as Lecturer/Teacher/ Shiksha Karmi under the State Government and therefore, if some preferential treatment is given for the services rendered as a Vidya Mitaan, the petitioner could get some advantage in the fresh recruitment. As far as the appointment to the post of Lecturer/Teacher/Shiksha Karmi is concerned, it is not in dispute that it is in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government for the respective post. This Court in exercise of its judicial power, at this juncture would only have to see whether the recruitment process initiated by the State Government is in accordance to the rules or not ?