^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS). 53S2-/2009 PETITIONERS n^'^ ^w v-^v'" -y W.-" .,' <^. - ^" ^. ..- ' ^y>'" ^" 1. Loku @ Laku Ram Mourya, Son of Shri Sondhar, aged about 49 years, Occupation Peon, Working at Mata Rukhmani Seva Sansthan, Dimrapal, District Bastar (Chhatisgarh) 2. Manglu Ram Kashyap, Son of Mittoram Kashyap, aged about 42 years, Occupation Peon, Working at Mata RukhmaniSeva Sansthan, Dimrapal, District Bastar (Chhatisgarh) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deaprtment, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), ^2. The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.), 3. The Secretary, Mata Rukhmani Seva Sansthan Samiti, Dimrapal, Tah. & District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS: gnsi' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 5982 of2009 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Loku @ Laku Ram Mourya & another. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. AgnUiotri, J. Present: Shri Indrapal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govenuiient Advocate forllie State/respondents 1 aiid 2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day ofOctober, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for fhe parties. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court rendered mSmt A.Lall \\ State of Chhattisgarh & Other^, thus the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to decide their case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification asto whether the respoaident No. 3-Institute is a Govemment Aided school and the petitioners are teacher within the sanctioned strength. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the State/respondents 1 and 2 submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considercd and decided- in accordance with law, within a period offour weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 3. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners, nothing sur^ives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, fhe writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2007 (l)BLJ 265