itC.R.SMR i.N<yi; ^) fiS'': t^^^jj •^^:. 9'^ :!^':.' !^''..';:' 6S ^1\W! IN THE mGH GOBRT CW JGDIGATURE AT K(LASPU»l€^) •*. " • '• . ' ' • ••••.•••••..'. • .'•••... ' " • WR (S)No.....6^K..-../20tl' fETITIQNER ^^ ..•-•Y!>yt ^^-^1" -e-s^ sw -t^ RESPONDENTS '/ 1. Maniprabha Tripathi, D/o. Shri Parmanand TripattuAged_about40years working as Asst. Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary Schoot Sarangarh, R/o. Sarangarh.Dist.Rai^rh (C.G.) ^2. SushilaTi>ppo^I>/aShnPatrasMinj,Aged 42 years, Workiag as L.D.T. R/0. ^^danbahar,TehsflKuakuI^,Dist.Jashpur (C.&). ..:••:,: .:::.: Y3. Sunita Lakrst D/o.Shn.Edward Lala-a, Aged 38 years, 'Working as LJ5.T. Govt. Primary Schopl, R<o. Dandpani (Kansabel), Teh. Kunkuri, Dist. 1 .Wipur(G.Q^__ ^4. PnrushottomLalS/o.ShriZRSwamkai; Aged 38, Wbikmgas.Asst, Teaehec, ©ovt^ Primary SchoolBataupali,R/p.Saran^-h, RaigarhRoad,Raigarh(C.G.) •'WERSUS ; : ' • ' ". , ^1. y ^ State of Ghhattisgarh.througfa the SecraterYPubli&Educationt)epartinent Mantralaya B.K.S. .Bhawan, ftatpur (G.GO' '.••,.•-.'^ ;:. District EducatipnaIOfiieer,RaigaTh Dist.Raigaih(C.a) District Ed.ueatioaal Oificer Jashpur,Dist.Jashpur(C.G.) •^S&arWhS ..'/^ ."1: ••':.. -A'-\^ ^ETrTIONUNDERAKIiei^S226QBI'HEC3QNS3ffi®'I^ FORISSKANCE'OF.APPRDBR^TKWa^^ TIORASI ETC. OR^MRE^tI<@>N/OR]E»i»CWIJBaTN^T^ MISHeOURTOFeHHA'^ES&ARHAT-BILASPUR W P. fSl No 648of2007 Petitionens ; ManipraiAa Tripathi & others Versus State of Chhattisgarh cncl others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. ^nihotPi, 3 Shfi Manoj Chauhan, Advocate fpr •tl'ie peTitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Depyty 6ovt. Advocate for the respondents/State. iS' •<;. s<i O R & E R (Passed on ttiis 2nd doy of February, 2007) 1. Learned epunsel appeou'ing for the petitioners as wett os Deputy SQVemment Advocate qipearing for the respondents/State 4°i"t'Y submit that the facts of 1t)e present cass are similai' to that of in W. P. (5} No. 5473 of 2006 (Rakesh Kumar 5harma& gnother Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & o'rtisrs), which was ctispo^dof vicle prdeF dated 9th Oc+ober, 2006. They further submit •{hat ihe question of !aw involved is atso the same. 2. In view of the above stated submissions made by leamed coun^l for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 9th Octobar, 2006 passsdl by this Court in W. P. (S) No. N73 of 2006. No order as to costs. _^ Thakur -:sd/-,; ^Satisteail Ju<^&