'w^: ^' ,^^l, [i:'i IN THE HIGH GOURt GF ,IUDIGATUREAT6l1-ASPUR CHHAtTISGARH W.P.fSl No. 8^M'2QQ^f~^^ PETITIONERS ^ 2. •iL^^tl?^.. <t^^N-"--^ :/1^^"''1':1;"1/^::1^ ^!p.^w ^.RamsayShyam,S/o;|ShrrM^ Ram, aged alx>ut^ -4^ ^years, Assjstant Teacher; Gloyt. Primai^ SchQol - Khalari No.2, Block- Dondi, Di^tf.-Durg ((S.G.) j.1.'-^'.^'^:/ -••-"^••:/:-'^^\^.^;':.•^,::^.:^ Onkar ^Prasad Dewangan^^ Shri Mullu [Ram Dewangan, aged abQut 4^ lyears,^^^^^^^ A^ Teacher, Gbyt| Micldle^Schopl - Belocli, Block-GundeFdehi, Disft.-Dur^(G.G.^,^^^^^^^^^^ ^.j^:.^Manol'iaF?;y[l-al;^j:Sa:liui|S7o^^^^^^ Naraya L^ISahu,]agtGlabouf45 years, A^starit T^aeher,^G Primary ScHc»ol — BIO(^-C^de^etii, Distf.—^D^ '(C.G,);'^,^:4'.,^K -l;;if:^;;^S^^&.:'^':^'-.^^ ^ 4. Balchand Deshlahre;! S/c^ Shri Parsadi Rim,} agicll alNsuf^ years, ^jsta^t^ T^ PFimaryiSdjioo||-1|enghai|Block^ — [^ndilo^aral ra -_(G.G.) ''I: RESPONDENT'S VjERSUS ^^1. State ofClnhattjsg^ Thej Se<^ary| E)epat|rien^ ^?j^^..^Education;,.|.^ ;!R|aipur'(CtG|^flii'^;il'i^];^t|^ m ^J 2. Director Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur 3. District Education Officer, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRLT, WRITS, DIRECTION ETC. TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. HI6H COURT OF CHHATnS6ARH AT BIL^SPUR W P.fS) No 86 of 2007 Petitioners : Ramsay Shyarn and others Versus Respondents : State of Chhattj^arh and others SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish IC. Agnihotri, J P^sent: Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain/ Panel Lawyer for the State/re^ondents, ORDER (Possed on this 16th Doy of Jonuary, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for 1+ie State/respondents jointly submit that the facts of the present writ petitions are similar to that of in W. P. (S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari and others vs, State Sovemment of Chhatti^arh & others)/ which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2C%)6. They further ajbmit that the question of hw involved is also the same. 2. In view of the above stated aibmissions made by leamed counsel for the parties the writ petition is allowed in terms of the orcter dated 7.11.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. (S.) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwarj and others vs. Stata 6overnment of Chhat^isgarh & others), No order as to costs. Subhash Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge