AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier the petitioners were working as part-time vocational teachers, thereafter they applied
for the post of Lecturer, they were called for interview, they appeared in the interview, but instead of appointing them on the post of Lecturer, they
have been appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 8.10.2008 and 26.9.2008 respectively, whereas they were entitled to be
appointed on the post of Lecturer or in alternative on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circular dated 23.5.1998 issued by the State of
Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, direction be issued to the respondents for their consideration on the post of Lecturer or in alternative on the post of Lab
Assistant.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State would submit that the petitioners have accepted their appointment on
the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, therefore, they are not entitled to be considered on the post of Lecturer. He would further submit that now the
post of Lecturer is appointed by direct recruitment.
Be that as it may, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for the post of Lecturer or in alternative on the post of Lab
Assistant strictly in accordance with law in the light of rules and regulations applicable within three months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order after hearing all affected parties including the interveners. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No cost(s).