C^l^^- (2> IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (-£> WRIT PETITION No. S-^^'T- /2006 PETITIONERS fy"0 -^y/ j€y/ ^ .-••^v?y A^ ^<iW •<v^' / v</ . V// ^-i. Nilambar Markam, Son of Shri Shyam Sundar Markam aged about 40 years, resident of VUlage Sukli Bhata, P.0. Latapara, Deo Bhog, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2. Pushpa Sonwani, daughter of Shri Lalmani Sonwani, aged about 38 years, resident of Village Deo Bhog, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3. Ku. Ghankeshi Sonwani, ^ daughter of Shri Laknani Sonwani, aged about 37 years, Resident of Pradhan Para, Deo Bhog, District- Raipur (C.G.). 4. Shri Dhaneshwar Nagesh, Son of Shri Man Singh Nagesh, aged about 35 years, resident of VUlage Gohakela, P.0. Mungher, Deo Bhog, District-Raipur (C.G.). ^-5. Shri Jugeshwar Pradhan, Son of Bhuneshwar Pradhan, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Gohara Badar, Deo Bhog Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS -1'. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Departinent (Ministry), D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Deputy Director of Public Institution, Education Department, Post Office - . Pension Bada, Arvind Nagar Ward, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Block Education Officer, Government of Chhattisgarh, Education Department, Post Office - Deo Bhog, District- Raipiu- (C.G.). ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (sl No. 5747 of 2006 Pfetitioners : Nilaxabar Markaui and others Versus Respondeats State ofChhattisgprh & otfaeis Stn^e Bench: Hou'bte Mr. Justfce Satfadk K. Agirfhotrl. Shri Atok Nq;am, oounsel fiw the petitioaer. Shri Suiaeet Venna, Panel tawyer for the respoadents/State. ORDER (27th October, 2006) 1. It is subinitted that the facte aiid questton of law involved in fhe present pctitfon are samc to fhat of in Ram Sahay Jha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ofhera (Original Applicatfoa No. 15/19^). 'nie Madhya Pradesh Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, by its judgment tind order dated 16.2.1996, aUowcd fhe applfcation of fhe petittoner therein. Leamed counsel for fhe petifeners secks pcrBMssmn of tius Coiut to approach the respondents/State for consideiHtion and disposal ofthe pelitfoners casc in terms ofthe order dated 16.2.1996 passed in the case of Ram Sahay Jha (Supx^ by Madhya Pradesh Adminmteative Tributial, Jabalpiir. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for thc respoitdents/State fiurty agrees with fhc subcaissions made by teamcd counsel for (he petitfoners.__ 3. 4. '^ Accotdnigty, fhe petitioneis are gianted liberty to inakc a representation before fhe respondeiita-State Autbontics for fheir decision on fhe representatton ia ttic Ugh.t of the order dated 16.2.1996 passed iu tfae case ofRam Sahay Jha (Supraj, in accordance with law, on its own nierit, wifhia reasonabte tinae. With the above-stated liberty, fhis petitk>n standa dispoaed o£ No oider as to costs. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge ¥-