IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (SI No. ETITIONERS /-: 1) P fRaf QC uéL [H 4“ OF 2007 Satya Prakash Verma, S/o. Shri Kartik Ram Verma, aged about 42 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Mudhena, Block 85 District R/o. Village Block 85 District Mahasamund Belsonda, Mahasamund (C.G.) Khemraj Dhruw, S/o. Shri Mohan Singh Dhruw, aged about 37 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Kanpa, Mahasamund Near Block & District ‘ R/o. Jila Panchayat Karyalaya, Mahasamund (C.G.) Chandrashekhar Naik, S/o. Shri Deo Prasad Naik, aged about 40 Occupation— Govt. Servant, Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Rajasavaiyakhurd, Block Pithoura District Mahasamund R/o. Block years, Rajasavaiyakhurd, Mahasamund Village Pithoura (C . G.) District g / :4) Poshan Kumar Gaharwar, S/o.§t""Shri Benimm Gaharwar, aged about 37 years, Occupation~ Govt. Servant, Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Nandgaon, Block and District Mahasamund R/o. Village Belsonda, Block and District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1) State of C.G. through Secretary ‘ 'V Department of School Education, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). District Education Officer, Mahasamund C.G.) ’ t3) Block Education Officer, Block Mahasamund and District Mahasamund (C.G.) /4} Block' Education Officer, Bloc Pithoura Distt Mahasamund (C,G.) ‘r k HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILAsPUR W, PJSI Ea 414 of 2007 Pe‘féfioners : Sa'fya Pmkash Verma aw o+hers Versus Respondeni's : Sfafe of Chhaf'risgarh and ofhers And w, P45} No, 429 of 2007 5B: Hon’ble Mr. Jus‘rice 5a+ish K. Agniho'fri. J Present Ms. Hamida Siddique, Advoca‘re for fhe pefi‘ricner-(s). Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Governmer‘if Advcca+e for ‘Hne respandenfs/ swfa. 0 R D E R (Passed on \‘his 23rd Day of January , 2007) 1. Leamed counse! appearing for 'i'he f§e+i+ioaers as we” as for We 5+a+e/responden+s joinHy submH fhai’ 'H1e fac+s af fhe presanf wrif pefi'fions are simShr‘ 1'0 fha'f' of Era W. P. (5) No. 5976/2006 (Sushi! Tiwari and afhers vs. Sfa'fe Governmen+ of Chhaf-risgarh & ofhers), which was allowed Vida order- da'l‘ed 7,11.2G06. They furfher' submi+ fha‘l' fhe quesfion of iaw involved is aiso fhe same. . In View of fhe above-sfafed submission's made by ieamed counsel fer fhe par-fies, fhe wrif pe+§+i0n5 arg aHowed in farms af fhe order da-red 7.11.2906 pagsed by fhi's Courf in WP. (5.) No. 5976/2006 9i (Sushi! Tiwuri and ofhers vs. 5+a+e Governmenf of Chhaffisgarh :31 \3. A cooy of This order be ploced on record in ofher connecfed wrif ofhers). No order as +0 cosfs. 4 pefifion. Sdl— . Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 3 Thakur i i ‘ _ Peii‘rioners : Smi Vina Versus ResporiuJen'fs : Shfe of