Qi)W7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE :: CG:: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No : :HDHL OF 2011 PETITIONERS : 1. Gautav Bole aged 20 yrs s/o Shri Asha Bole r/ o Samta Vihar Colony Tikarapara — Bilaspur CG 2. Birendra Kumar Sahu aged 20 yrs s/o ShTi Gopichand Sahu r/ o Vikash Nagar, 27 IGxoli Bilaspur : Distt - Bilaspur CG Vishal Ghore aged 2O yrs s/ o Shri G.P.Ghore r/ o Near Dayalband Post-Office Bilaspur : Distt-Bilaspur CG Aabid Khan aged 20 years, s/ o Shri Jaleel Khan Near Civil Line Thana, Bilaspur Distt — Bilaspur CG - VERSUS - K. / RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh : Department of School Education : DKS Bhavan, Raipur Distt-Raipur CG M r 2. C.G. Board of Secondary Education : Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal : Through : The Secretary C.G. Board of Higher Education Pension Bada : Raipur Distt - Raipur CG ® 3. Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi Through : The Secretary, Board of Higher Educah‘on Delhi Rajputana Lal Bhawan No 17, Gopalpurgaon (Timarpur) Post Office, Azadpur, Delhi - 9 _/ 4. Panchavati Higher Secondary school Through: The Principal Panchavati Higher Secondary School Near Old High Court, Bilaspur Distt — Bilaspur CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7017 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No.2. O R D E R (Passed on this 25th day of November, 2011) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Amit Kindo & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others’ and prays that this petition may be disposed of in the same terms. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that though, the facts and issues are identical; however, a writ appeal against the order passed in Amit Kindo (supra) is pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. No interim relief has been granted, therein. 4. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of Amit Kindo (supra) and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the application form of the petitioners and the same shall not be rejected on the grounds contained in the impugned order dated 25—9-2009 (Annexure — P/2'), because the aforesaid order would not be relatable to the case of the petitioners. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNlHoTRI «a; Gowri 1 WP (C) No.364 of 2011 (decided on 23-2-201 1) a ' PETITIONERS Gaurav Bole & Others Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others