INTHE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT RAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. OF 1998 w¢g ,Qqmlm" APPLICANTS: DIHU RAM YADAV AGEGD ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SHRI BHUKHANLAL YADAV VILLAGE - POST- BHAISMUNDI, BLOCK: KURUD W 2. JAINENDRA KUMAR SAHU AGED ABOUT 30, YEARS S/O SHRI HRIDAYARAM SAHU VILLAGE - POST— BHAISMUNDI. BLOCK- KURUD ‘ DISTT.- RAIPUR (MR) 3. RAMDAS SONVANI W S/O SHRITHANWAR SONVANI R/O VILLEGE - TANDWA, POST -TANDWA(BAIKUNT) w DISTT. - RAIPUR IMP.) BHUNESHWAR PRASAD MANIKPURI AGFD ABOUT 27 YEARS WWW RIO VILLEG & POST — TANDWAIBAIKUNTHI BLOCK - TILDA DISTT. —RAIPUR (1 To 4 all applicants are Ex. Mansevi Up Sahayak Shikchhak previously appointed on due selection and eligibilites against the vacant posts oi Asstt.Teachers underthe Education Deptt. of Govt. of MP.) VERSUS mN.APPLICANTS/ : (1) STATE OF M.P.. nFspoNDENTs THROUGH C0LLECT0R,RAIPUR (MR) P.O. COLLECTORATE, RAIPUR (M.P.) COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GOVT. OF M.P., DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION (DPI OFFICE) NEAR CHETAK BRIDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.) A (3) DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, v GOVT. OF M.P. EDUCATION. DEPTT. EDUCATION DISTT. RAIPUR PO. PENSION BADA ARVIND NAGAR WARD M RAIPUR (M.P.) (4) BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER GOVT. OF M.P. EDUCATION. DEPTT. BLOCK & POST — KURUD DISTT.- RAIPUR (M.P.I (5) BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER GOVT OF M P EDUCATION. DEPTT. BLOCK & POST — TILDA DISTT.- RAIPUR IMPI‘, APPLICATION [PETITION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL ACT. 1985 (No.13 OF 1985) READ WITH ARTICLES 14 ,16,21>& 311 OF THE CONS! ITUTION OF INDIA CONSIDERED WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I’ISGARH AT BILAsPUR W. P. No. 2487/2005 Pefifioners : Dihu Ram Yodav dc o1'hers Versus Respandenfs Sfafe of M. P. (now State of Chhaffisgarh )& ofhers SB: Hon'ble Mn Jus1'ice Sa‘tish K. Agniho‘tri, J Shn' Alok Nignm, Advocaie for fhe pefi‘h'oners. Miss Sunifu Jain, Panel lawyer for fhe respondenfs/Si’afe. 0 R D $ R (Passed on fhis 14*“ day of December, 2006) The following order of the Cour-r is passed by Sa1-ish K. Agnihom. J. 1. Lzamed counsel appearing for fhe pefifioners as well as ieamed Panel lawyer qopear-ing for the respondents/Side joim'iy wbmi‘r 'rhaf the fac'rs of 'rhe presen? case are similar To fho‘l' of in W. P. (5) No. 2564/2005 (Kaiyan Singh Sahu 6i o'i'hers Vs. Stow of M.P. 6i ofhers), V which was disposed of vide order dafed 7.9.2005. They further submii 'rhaf fhe quesfion 5f low invoived is also 1he some. 2. In view of ‘lhe above sfa'red submissions made by learned counsel for fhe parfies 'l'his pefi'rion is disposed of in terms of ‘rhe order dafed E 7.9.2006 passed by fhis Courf in W. P. (5) No. 2564/2005. No order as To cosfs. , "\x l L\ \ l Saris}: K. Sd/— Agnihotri l l Judge r l l Thakur