ga£ IE’B L 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION (S) No. /6 0 mo? / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (Wendra Singh Nayak, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh Nayak, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Manikpur Bade, Distt. Raigarh,(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through // — Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /2/. District Education Officer — Raigarh (CG) Pe1jHioner Resbonden“ PefiHbnzr ‘ \ ResPohdents Pefiifioner Reséondenfs l3? ‘ \ Pe'ri ‘ioner Resp10$denfs ‘ Petifioncr Responden'fs Pefi1iioner - € Respondenfs l 1 agn1pal Nikunj 5mg of Chhmisgarh & another Versus w. P15) No. 124 af 2007 Venudhar Ijardar ’ Versus Sfa'l'z of Chhu‘ffisgarh & ano‘fher W. P.($) No. 125 of 2007 W. P.(5) No.‘ 132 af 2007 Clamznf- Kerke‘H'a Versus State of Chha‘Hisgar-h & another W. P.(5) No. 138 of 2007 Dilip Singh Sidar- Versus Stafé of Chhaffisgarh & anofher w. P45) kg. 143 'of 2007 TrHochan Nuyak Versus 5m+e of Chhafhsgarh & anofher v W P(5)No 1440f2007 Kallashpa'ri Nayuk Versus Sfa're of Chhaffisgarh 61 another W. P.($) No. 146 of 2007 Roop Narayan Rom Versus S‘fo'fe of Chha'rrisgarh & anoiher ‘ ‘ J Pefl'ripner Ku. Jeevan Manju Xaixo (af‘l’erv . . ‘ marriage Sm'f. Jeevan Manju Viswns) ; Versus - Resb¢nden*s i S‘I‘ate of Chhaf‘risgorh & ofhers . W, P15) No‘ 1480f 2007 Pz‘fitioner : Rqikumar Pa1'cl ' Versus Resipondenfs : 51w: of Chhamsgarh & ano'rhzr’ w. ms) Na. 152 of 2007 Pe ifioner : Shyam Mohan Nayak I * Versus 1 , Respondents : I S'mfe of Chha‘l'fisgarh & another > And ’ w, us) No, 16o of 2007 ’\z 5‘8; Hon‘ble Mr. Justice swish K. Agnihotri, J Presenf: ShrLi A N Bhakfa Advocate for The pefitioners (s) Mrs AnJu AhUJu Depu'ry Governmen'r Advocufe Mr Arvmd Dubey, Panel Lawyer Ms Sunrfo Jam Panel Lawyer for The reTondenfs/Smfe O R D E R ‘(Passed on mrs 17*“ Day of January, 2007) The following order of fhe Cour'l‘ Is passed by Sa'hsh K Agmho‘tri \ i x/ 1 Learned c‘ounsel appearing for fhe pe‘rifioners as well as for 'fhe Smre/respondenfs join-Hy submif fha? the facts of fhe presenf writ whims are similar to mow of in w. P. (s) No.25473/zooo (Rokosii Kumar Shdrrna & ano‘rher vs State of Chhaffisgarh & others) which was disposed of Vide order dated 9 10 2006 They further subrmt that the questi n of Iaw involved Is also the some l i l i i Pe?§itioner : Narendra Singh Naynk ? 1 Versus ‘ .' Res‘pondems : . Sfa‘fe of Chhaffisgarh & ano'rHer \ ‘ ‘ (Rakesh mar Shanna & ano‘rher vs Sh'l'e of Chha'r'hsgarh di others) i No order gs 1'0 costs 3. A copy of this order be placed on record in connecfed ma'H'er-s. i , Sd/— Subhash ’ 2. In View ofL flu above-stand submissions made by learned counsel for 'th: psr?i 1 these writ pefifions are disposed of in terms of 'tl'ie order dared ”(T3006 passed by ihis Court in w. P. (s) No. 5473/2006 Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge