@ C f’igzg’Z/ - IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHILATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Q ;L WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ' Shya Mohan Nayak, aged about 44 years, son Shri Madan Mohan Naya, Assistant eacher, Government Primary School Dbanipali, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (sl.no.53 ofAnn P-l) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, throh (/ ug , in G District Education Officer — Raigarh (CG) — Secretary, Department of School Education Dau Kalyan Sgh Bhawan, Raipur (C..) WRIT PET1T10N(S)N0. 1 /200a PETITIONFR w-m of k T ho VERSUS @ 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ L HIGH ¢OLIRT OF CHHATTISGARH 5T BILASPUR L ‘ . P. 5 123 200 Pefit'oner Jagatpal Nikunj Versus Sfafe of Chhaf'risgarh & ano'l‘hgr Rz ndems T W. P.(5) No. 124 6f 2007 Pe'fié‘ri‘oner Re§p$ndenfs State of Chhaffisghrh & ano‘rhr ‘ w. P45) No. 125 of 2007 Pe+€fi9ner Ku. Jeevan Manju Xnlxo (affer marriage Smf. Jeevan Manju Viswqs) State of Chhaffisgarh & others- W. P.(5) No. 132 of 2007 Pe?in lnmn Kerke‘H' ReodeMs sph Venudha‘r Ijhrdn Versus Versus Re+ondenfs Vry Is e Se f Chhftisgar- & mofho Peifo finer Reséoenfs nd W. P.(5) No. 138 of 2007_ amp ih sidar Versus sng State f Chaffisgarh nofhe o h & ur w. ms) No. 143 of éoo7 rilhan Nna Toc yk Vsu ers efiier \ Re den'rs 1af harri athr.- s ‘on Se of Chsgorh & noe w. ms) No. 144 of 2007 lfi Na Pefiioer ‘ Vsus er f‘p Rpjoide fe fCHsgar & anofh ‘ esrnrrrs S'l'a o’hha‘ih e r . W. P.($) No. 146 of 2007 fi R Nar odn‘r Respnes Pefioner oop ayan Ram Versu h f Hgarh & Sh o Chha'is anofher r é \ i%roer Cef a taf o ah r \ i Pton L Kdiashpa cyk s w. P15) $5148.: 2007 ' Pejfi+ioner : Rajkumar Patel Respondents : Sta‘re of Chhamsgarh & another Versus V - ORDER (Passed on ‘H'us 17*“ Day of January, 2007) The following order of the Courf as passed by Soflsh K Agmhofrl J. 1. Laarnod counsel appearing for 'rhe pefifioners as we" as for the Smfe/res$ondmts join‘l'ly submif fha‘f the facfs‘of fhe presenfwrif pefifions are similar 'to That of in W. P. (S) No. 5473/2006 (Raked'l Kumar Shalrma & ano‘fher vs. Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh & ofhers), which was dispo l d of vide order dated 9.10.2006. They further submit that the question lof law. involved is also the same. y. P.(5) N9. 152 of 2007 Pei'ifioner Shyum Mohan Naynk . Vérsus , Responder-#5 : . Stan of Chhu‘r‘risgarh & ano'rher ; AM F W. P.(5) No. 160 of 2007 ‘ Pehhoner : Narendra Singh Nayak f; Versus I ‘ ReWWndems : Stow of Chhamsgurh & another 58 Hon'ble Mr Jushce So'hsh K Agmhoiru, J Presenf: ‘ 5hl+i AN. Bhakm, Advocn‘re for The pefifionérs (s). Mrsl. Anju Ahuju, Depu‘ry Governmenf Advoaa're, Mr. Arvind Dubey, PanelVLawyer, Ms. Suni‘l'n Jain, Panel Lawyer for 1112 respondznfs/Sfafe. 4 @\ In View of th: abova-sfakd wbmissions made by learned counsel for fhe' parfi€s 1km wrif pefifions are disposed of in ierms of fhe‘ order da'red 9 10 2006 passed by 'fhls Courf m W P (5) No 5473/2006 (Rnkesh Ku Shanna & ano‘fher vs Sfo'l’e of Chhafhsgarh & omers) No order T [to costs \ . A copy of fhls order be plared on record m connected ma‘h'ers Sdl- . Satish K. Agnihotrl ‘ Judge Subnash ' . ,1 ‘