HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BIU(SPUR W. P.(S) No. 1843 of 2007 Petitioners Versus Respondents 1. Owtn'ika Das Ldire, S/o, Chetan t>as Lohre, Aged abwrt 37 years, A»istant Teacher, ©ovt. Middle School, Nemdnl (Nawtgarh), Oistt. Durg (C.6.) 2. Chtmdra Kumcr Bharadw<y, S/o. Shri Jagan Rom Bhor<Klw<y, Aged about 36 yeor5, Assistant Teacher, 6ovt. H.S. School, (N<n»agarh), Distt. t)urg (C.6.) 3. Santodi Kumar Mishra, S/o. Radheshyam Mishra, Aged qbout 37 years, AssistUTt Teacher, Sovt. ©irls H.5. School, Bemetora, Oistt. t>ur9, V.6.) 1. State of Chhdrttisgarh A Others Through- Secretary, School Education, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. Director Lok Shikshan, Raipw (C.&) bistrict Education Officer, Raipu- (C.6.) 3. Oistrict Education Officer, Bemetora, Distt. &wg, (C.6.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. AAr. Arvind Dubey, Ponel La»»yerfor the State/respondents. OROER (Passed on this 29* Dcy of Morch, 2007} 1. Learned coursel appearing for the petitioners sitomits that the question of law iwolved in this petition is governed by the Circular dated 20-1- 1987. The High Cowt of Madhya Pradesh in Indraveer Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P. and others^ has considered the issue and disposed of the said matter in following tenns:- Pare 2 "..................... In view of this submission advonced by Counset for parties, this petition is disposed of by giving fotlowing directions. The respondent No. 1 shall consider petitioner s pepresentotiorB referred to above and dispose of the same at an ewly date, preferobly within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order in accor-dance with low, keeping in mind the circulars issued by State 6ovt. ae also the directions given by the Tribunal in similar" mtrtters." 2. Learned counset appearirg for the parties would jointly submit and (idmit that this case, being similar in nature, is squarely covered by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Indrweer Singh Tomcr (Supra). 3. In view of aforestated reasons, this petition is disposed of in •the same terms. No order" <B to costs. Sd/. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2004(2) MP.H.T. 3(NOC) Subhash