i.-^iy'ut IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH W. P. (S) No w V] / 2006 PETITIONERS ^ ii-^N-^ ^^]s> ^o-'"••••:';;s^-rn^J ^ ^ ssa ' ..A .0°^ -^y^ ^^ ^p- ^.^' / 1. Narayan Prasad Suryavanshi, S/o. Shri Tabu Suryavanshi, aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School - Amruwa, Block Bamhnidih, Distt. - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2. AnilKumar Dewangan, S/o. Shri Dhaniram Dewangan, aged about 37 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School - Gaud, Block Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3. Pitamber Singh Kanwar, S/o. Shri Ram Singh Kanwar, aged about 37 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Hr. Sec. School Biock - Champa(C.G.) 4. Govind Ram Mannewar, S/o. Shri Bhuwan Lal, aged about 36 years Assistant Teacher, Govt. Gril's Primary Schooi - Kurda, Block Baloda, Distt. - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgrh, The Secretary Education D.K.S. (C.G.) ^z. 3. ^' Director, Publiclnstruction Chhattisgarh Govt, Raipur District Education Officer, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) wassw'as^ssaswsLS^ca^sm OF IN"l& FOR ISSUANCE OF_SUiTA&E DIREfTtOH FT^- TO DO JUSTICE HI6H COURT OF OWATTISeAfW AT BIUtSPUR W. P. ts) No. 7373/ 2006 , Petitioners : Surendra Kumor Vishat and others Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh cnd others W. P. fel No. 7384/ 2006 Petitioners : Naroywr Prasad Suryavanshi & o-Hiers Versus Respondents : Storte of Chhatt-isgarh nnd others And W. P. fsVNo. 7390/2006 Petitioners : Malikrom Nag and o-ttiers Versus Respondents : 5tate of Chhath'sgarh and others SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Mr. Anll Shi^i Rajput, Advocate for thepetitioner(s). Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, ©ovemmentAdvocate for the respondents/State. Oft b E R (Possed on •this 5th doy of J<inu<»ry,2007) The fotlowin9 order of •Hie Court' is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners cs well as leamed Sovemment Advocate appearing for the respondents/Stute jointly submit -that -the facts of the present coise are similar to that of in W. P. (S) No. 5191 of 2006 frlari Prosad Kurre and o-rtiers Vs. State of Chh<rttis9<irh & o-thers), whidi wos di^osed of vide ordar dated 3 of Qctober, 2006. They further submit that the question of law involved is also •the same. Subhnsh 2. In view of -the nbove stated submissions made by leaaned counsel for the pcrties, the petitions are disposed of 'm terms of the order Arted 3rd of Octobar, 2006 yssswS, by -this Court in W. P. (S) No. 519t of 2006. No order as to costs. 3. A copy of Ihis order be ploced on record in o-ther connected writ petition. Sd/- SatishKAgnlhotri Judge