‘W ‘ § o a Q‘gswxnnbx... ‘ ) we“ SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (_C.G.) $mag‘éz3z EE'wch Writ Petition No.(0l3 0f 2006 Directorate, Public Instructions, Pensionbada, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.). 4. The Shanti Bhartiya Shikshan Samiti, Through: The Secretary, Shanti Shikshan Samiti, Pt. Nehru Higher Secondary School, .Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). Bhartiya Petitioner Ku. Jyoti Golcha, / Aged about 40 years, D/o m a“ Shri Shanti Lal Golcha, Working as Lower Division Teacher, Pt. Nehru, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Station Road, Durg (C.G.). Resident, of Mohan Nagar, Durg District, Durg (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (C.G.). 2. The Director, 5. The Principal, Pt. Nehru Higher Secondary Schooi, Station Road, Durg, District i Durg (C.G.). ‘ y‘V WRLT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/2g7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA, 1950 FDR ISSUANCE OFWRIT IN THE NATURE OL CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOB APPROPRIATE ORDERIORDERSI DIRECTIONIDIRECTIONS. 17- . W _ ( A‘*_4 .A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISEARH AT BIIASPUR W. P. No. 698 of 2006 Pe'rifioner' : D. 5. Hirwcm Versus Responden‘rs : 5Tafe Chha‘f'fisgurh and o‘l‘hers W. P. No. ?19 of 2006 Pefifioner : AK. Sharmc Versus Responden‘rs : STaTe of Chhaffisgarh and ofhar‘s 'W. ?. No. ?22 0f 2096 Pefifioner i J.N‘ Vermcx Versus Respondenfs t Smfe of Chha‘Hisgarh and o‘rhers W. ?. No. I’ZO cf 20% ?e1'i+ioner‘ : SN. Harmukh Versus §espond2nf§ i Sfc‘re of Chhq?‘risgarh and ofher's WW Pefifioner : D.N. Sahu ‘ V s s ’ ‘ ‘ * Respondenfs : Smfe of Chhc‘ffisgarh ancé Ofhers And WP. Na. 1019/2006 Pefi‘rioner : Ku‘ Jyo'H Gotcha Versus Respandenfs : 5mm of Chha‘h’isgarh and Ofhers SB: Hon’ble Mr. Jusfice Sa‘rish K. Agniho‘l’ri, J Present I Shri P P Sahu counsel for 'Hqe pe?i‘rioners 5hr; V V 5 Murfhy, Depufy Advoccfe Cenem‘ w1’rh Ms Sum‘m J'cun Pane! lawyer for The respondenTs/STOTD 0 R D E R (Passed on *his 9+” day of February, 2007) 1. Learned counsei appearing for- The pefi’rioners as well‘as for 'rhe Sfa‘re/r‘espondenfs join-Hy submiT fhm’ fhe fads of fhe presem‘ wr'i‘r pe'H‘rions are simi‘ar w fhaf of in W. P. No. 4iO8 of 2005 ‘ (Smf. A. La” vs. Sfa‘l’e of Chhaffisgarh 6g ofhars) and ofher‘ connecfed maTTer's, which were aHowed vide order dafed 6.2.2007. They furfher' submif The? fhe quesfion of iaw invoivec‘ is oiso The same. 2. In View of ‘l’he above-smfed submissions made by learned counsei for The parfies, These wrif pefifions are aiiowed in Terms of fhe orders dofed 6.2.2007 passed by fnis Cour-1' in W. P. No. 4108 of 200§ and ofher connecfed inm‘i'ers. No order as fo cosi's. 3. A copy of fhis order be pioced on record in o‘rher connecfed wri'f pefix‘ions. Sd/— _ Satish K. Agnihmn Judge