'jSj!2i E tjf-s.it.isi 'anuLE iJKWCs'i "PETITIONERS ^./^. ^fw/ ^\/^y / ^M/ ;.-^^- ^' .^•"^y .~s^ v ^i^ (^JF^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRITPETmON(S)NO.$5£' /2007 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1.—"MangruRam, aged about 56 years, son of Shri Jogi Ram, Assistant Teacher, Government Tribal Primary School Majhgaon, PO Bhitghara, Vikas Khand Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (SI.No. 301 oftheAnn P-1) 2. Laeos Tirky, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Rimish Shamo Tirky, Assistant Teacher, Government Tribal Primary School Tatkela, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (SI.No. 316 of the Ann ,p-1) 3. Smt. Friska Kujur, aged about 43 years, W/o Shri Marshel Kujur, Assistant Teacher, Government Tribal Primary School Samdura, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (SI.No. 322 ofAnn P-1) 4." Surajnath Ram Bhagat, aged about 44 years, son of Shri Dondo Ram, Assistant Teacher, Government Tribal Primary School Tora, Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (Sl.no. 431 of Annexure P-1) 5. Kristofar Tirky, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Imil Tirky, Assistant Teacher, Government Tribal Primary School Sukra, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (SI.No. 434 of.Ann P-1) yl ^,.^" RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1 .'—-^State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, District Jashpur (CG) 3. The Block Education Officer, Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur(C.G.) 1i~ Bablu HKH COUKT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. %0 of 2007 Petitioners ; Mangru Itoffl and o'thers Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt'isgarh and others SB: Hon'bfe Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: AAr. A. N. Bhakto, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Sovemment Advocate for the reqiondents/State. OR&ER (Passed on this 29th Doy of Jamwy. 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearin9 for Ihe petitioners as well as for the State/reqtondents jointly submit that the facts of the present writ petition are similar to that of in W. P. (5) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari and others vs. State fiovemment of ChhatHsgarh & others), which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006. They further submit that the question of hw involved is also the same. 2. In view of the obove-stated submissions made by leamed counsel for the part'ies, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by -rtiis Court in W.P. (S.) No. 8976/2006 (&ishil Tiwari and others vs. Stcrte Sovemment of Chhatl'i^arh & olhers). No order os to costs. -—— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge "s^: