1mm ccvm“ OF cHHATTtgamlgi AT Bzmswg mp4s) No. 21112008 Nirupa‘ma Moha'iik, Aged 45 years, UDT, Wfo. Late Shn' Smihakar Moha‘n‘k, R10. Q.N. F- 12, South Chakradhar Nagar, ‘ Distt. Rajgarh (CG) PETITIO§YER Versus RE$PONDENTS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh The Sec-retaxy, Education Department, DKS Bhawax}, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Pmcipal, Govt. Giris Higher Secexidary School, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) District Education Ofticer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh {CG} 'W‘RIT PETITnBN UN§ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE €ON$TITUTIOE OF INBIA (SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri RRSinha, ccurlsel f0}? the petiticner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for “the State. ORAL OREER {Passed on this 11th tiay oi’January 2008) 1. Leallled counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the State] respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharaxiwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg audl anothex {2006 (Ii) MPJR—CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case oi‘Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal l Corporation, Burg and another ($upra), subject to verification of the fact ‘as to whether the petitioner has acquired B. Ed./B.T.I / \ \