c^" / o ^crr ^y"^",^- ^•^{;,^ty K.^W IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURw WRIT PETITION (81 No. /2010 PETITIONERS ^ ^- «t--- .<^y ^M^ 'yy^f •'...r<A/v -" \.y 1. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, S/Q. Late M.P.Tiwari, aged 42 yrs., R/o. Beachpara, Ward No.6, Teh.<w<- Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 2. Santosh Dewangan, S/o. Late M.R.Dewangan, aged 40 yrs. R/Q. Mahamayapara, Kfl.+Teh. Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 3. Vyay K. Sahu, S/Q. Shri Faguram Sahu, aged 42 yrs. R/o. VU1. Thangabhat, Teh. Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.). 4. Nawab Khan, S/Q. S. Khan, aged 43 years, R/o. Ward No.7, Teht^Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 5. Jeet Kumar Sinha, S/o. Shri G.R.Sinha, aged 45 yrs. R/o. Ward No.lO, Teh?K(i.Navagarh, Dist Durg (C.G.). 6. Rishi Kumar Shrivastava, S/Q. Shri G.L.Shrivastava, .,aged 47years, R/o. Ward No.l2,,teh. Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.). 7. Gulab Singh Khurana, S/Q. Shri B.S.Khurana, aged 45 years, R/o. Near Main Road, Teh.^Navagarh, Dist. Durg. /-^1- 8. Shri Dhani Ram Sahu, S/o. Chinta Ram Sahu, aged 42 yrs, R/Q. Vm. Baghel, Teh^-" Navagarh, Dist. Diirg (C.G.). 9. Ramesh K. Soni, S/o. Shri Atal Soni, aged 42 yrs., R/Q.Ward No.^, TehtV-'i Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 10. Ram Surat Sharma, S/o. Narmada Prasad Sharma, aged about 43 years, R/Q.V^-5*eh. Nav^arh, Dist. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Department (Ministiy), D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Education Department, Post Office - Pension Bada, Andnd Nagar Ward, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. RESPONDENTS "%-. HIGH OOUm' OF OHHAmSGARH ^T BILASFUR WRITPETmON(S) No. 1077of2QlQ PETmONER : Ajay Kumar Tiwari & O&eis. VERSU8 RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh& anolfaCT. WRIT PEl'niON UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTI'IUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble ShiiSatteli K. Aenlhotefc A Present: Stui Alok Nigam, Advocate for the petiticmars. Shri A.V.ShridBiar, Paael LawyCTfcrthe State/ms?pond@nEts. OKALORUER (Passed<ml5tlxdayof March,2010) 1. Leamed counsel appeating ftw the petitiou^s seek peomssion ofthis Court to withdraw this petition with Mt^rty to maJke representations beforethe aidhorities,to whichthe leamed counsel ^»eariagfor tfae State/ respondents has no objection. 2. It is ordered accorditigly. 3. In view oflfae above, tiie writ petition i»dismissed as witfidrawii wifh the above stated lltoerty, ifso advisedL _'^^———-— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge Amit