^-"-^: ^^f^g F° ^r'"^^^:^^ ?Jy?l^l.t': ISF^^>...^"y .>' ^ c' /7=- 2_^> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W. P. (S} No. *7^ / 20on j_ PETITIONERS ..^" ^^.<·^";. '^' ^w RESPONDENT'S / . ^y:^' ^•" ^ 1. Smt. Manju Shrivastava, W/o. Shri Nirmal Kumar, aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School - Danitola, Block - Dondi, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 2. Chinta Ram Patel, S/o. Paras Ram Patel, aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School - Nayapara (Limaudih), Block - Dondi, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1, ^"' State of Chhattisgrh, Through - The Secretary Department of Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner Tribal Welfare Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Distt.- Durg (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block - Dondi, Distt.- Durg (C.G.); WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT. WRITS. DIRECTION ETC. TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR W. P.rS) No. 77 of 2007 Petitioners : Smt. Manju Shrivastava and another Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others W. P.(S) No. 80 of 2007 Petitioners : Ramkrishna Pandey cund another Versus Reqsondents : State of Chhatt-i^arh and others And W. P.fS^ No. 83 of 2007 Petitioners : Smt. Shakun Manikpuri and another Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-i^xr+i and others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Pre^snt: Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for -rfie f»titioner(s). Mr, Arvind Dubey, Panel lawyer for 1+ie re^pondents/State. OR D E R (Passed on this 16th Day of January, 2007) ?"-11''' - 1. Learned counsel appearjng for the petitioners as well as for the State/re^ondents jointty submit that th& facts of the present writ petitions ar®similar to that of in W. P. (S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari csnd o-lliers vs. State ^overnment of Chhattis9arh <& others), which was allowed vide orcter dated 7.11.2006. They furth&r a.ibmit that the questson of kxw involved js also 1+ie same. 2. In view of the above stated submissions made by teamed counsel for the part>ies, these petitions are allowed in terms of the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. (5.) No. 5976/2006 (Su^iil Tiwari and others vs. State fiovemment of Chhatfri^arh A otiiers). No order as to costs. 3< A copy of 1+ijs order be placed on record in other connected writ petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge