IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. 1 2-J /2086- D/ WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER ,. ^ •* .^•^- .^<?y /^-" As%^ ^s.^v ^^'PONDENTS cPs^- <0 .ofc ^^- -y ~'-lrt,ts; ^y 2. >• Rulranjan Ekka, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Paulus Ekka, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Tribal Primary School Sonpur, Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (Sl.No237 ofAnn P-1) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deptt., Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) B 01. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER HMH COURT OF CHHATnSSARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. 117 of 2007 Petitioners : Monsin9h Khande ond others Versus Respondents : S-tute of Chhuttisgarh andothers W. P fS) No. 118 of 2007 Petitkwiers : Tejram Uiagat and others Versus Reqiondents : State of Chhdrttisgarh and o-thers W. P.fSl No. 121 of 20)7 Petitioner : Sanjay Kumur Sinha Versus Respondents : State of Chhaftisgarh and onother W. P.(S) No. 126 of 2007 Petitioner : Bhuvneshwar Pnsad Prodhon Versus Respondents : S-tate of ChhatfriS9<irh cind o-thers W. P.fS) No. 127 of 2007 Petitioner : Kulranjan Ekka Versus Re^wndents : State of Chhattis9arh and others W. P.(S) No. 128 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Bharti Bai Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh ond another W. P.(S) No. 129 of 2007 Petitioner : Philos Akshay Mukut Ti99a Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 130 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt.ProsoKli Bh<»9at Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh andano'ther ^ W. P.(S) No. 131 of 2007 Petitioner : Sagar Sai Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh ond others W. P.fS) No. 133 of 2007 Petituner : Ihus Bek Versus Respondents ; State of Chhdrttisgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 134 of 2007 Petitioner : Baliram Bhagst Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh ond ano-ther W. P.(S) No. 135 of 2007 Petitioner : Avinash Chandra Xalco Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarfi and others W. P.fSlNo. 136 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Shashikala Bhc^at Versus ftespondents : State of Chhattisgarh and onother W. P fS) No. 137 of 2007 Petitioner : Chhanduram Bhcgat Versus Respondents : State of Chhatl-isgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 139 of 2007 Petitioner : Ku. Clementuia Tigga Versus Respondents : State of Oihatt-isgarh and another W. P.fS) No. 145 of 2007 Petitioner : Krishna RamPatel Vwsus Respondents ; State ofChhatt-isgarh ond others W. P./S^No. 147 of 2007 Petitioner : Loxminaroyon Patel Versus Respondents : State of Chhatfrisgarh ond another W. P.(S) No. 149 of 2007 Petitioner ; Smt. AAaxi Miliyoni Toppo Versus Reqiondents : State of Chhattisgarh ond another W. P.fS) No. 150 of 2007 Petitioner ; Smt. Rajmani Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others W. P.(S) No. 151 of 2007 Petitioner : Chamm Ram Nagdeo Versus Respondents : Stote of Chhatt-isgarh ond o-thers W. P.(S) No. 159 of 2007 Petitioner : fianesh Ram Pradhan Versus Respondents : State of Chhatf-isgarh ond another W. P.(S\ No. 161 of 2007 Petitioner : Chhotekil Khanna Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh ond another W. P.(S) No. 165 af 2W7 Petitioner : Ramkumar Choudhari Versus Respondents : State of Chhatl'isgarh and another And W. P.(S) No. 168 of 2007 Petitioner : Brijmohon Nayak Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and ano-ther SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Ayahotri. J Present: Mr. A.N. Bhaktu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). AArs. Anfi Ahu^i, Oepu-ty fiovemment Advocate, Mr. Arvind Dubey, Ponel Lcwyer, AAs. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for -the respondents/Stute. ORDER (Passed on this 17th Doy of January, 2007) 1. Leamed counset cppearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that Ihe facts of the present writ petitions are simikxr to that of in W. P. (5) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari end o-thers vs. State Sovemment of Chhatt-isgarh & o'thers), which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006. They further submit thut the question of low involved is also thesame. 2. In view of the above-stated submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are allowed m terms of -the order dated 7.11.2006 possed by -this Court- in WJ>. (5.) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari and others vs. Stute fiovemment of Chhaftis9arh & olhers). No order as to costs. (3. A copy of •this order be pkiced on record n other cormected writ petition. Subharii Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge