$ HIGH $GURT OF CHHKI'TISGARH: BaLAS?UR Writ Petiticn ($3 N6. 890 of 2008 Petitioners 1) Prakash Das Manikpuri‘ as per appciniment Order, Prakash Rani, S/o. Shrl Chamaru Das Mamkauri Age ab0u€ 58 yearsx Asst. Teacher, Govt. Middb Schcoi, Decribang§a, Distt. Durg (CG). 2) Lakhan Lat Baipai, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Bajpai Age abeu: 56‘years. A$st Teas-her, Govt. Girls, Primary Schoel, Faradfad, Dist. Burg (CG). 3) Shri Ram Rajak, S/o. Shri Ledhu Ram Raiak, Age about 55 years. Head Master, Govt, Prirriary SchooL Ghoghraii Bmck Navagarh. Dist. Durg (CG). 4) Rarnji Sing‘n Chou‘nan, SIG. Shri Chain Sing'n Chouhan, Age abeut 59 years, Asst. Teacher. Govt. Primary Schooix Kurm Parsocli. Distt. Burg (CG). 5) Hmc‘nha Ram Mampal, Sic. Shri Birbai Singh Mahipai, Age absut 60 years. Head Master, Gsvt. Primary School. Majgaon. Distt. Rainandgaon (CG). 8) Vishnu Prasad Mishra, Sio. Shri Ramduiare Mishra. Age aboui 5'2 years, Asstt. Teacher Govt. Primary Schaci. Ramhepur’kaia, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). LD. Versus Respendents 1) State Govt, of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education & Tribai Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur {CG}. 2) DistriotEducaiion omcer. Dist’r. Durg (CG) 3) Bmck Educafion Officer, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). 4) 'District Education cmcer. Distt. Kabirdham (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri SomkantVerma, oounseiforthe petitioner. Shri Nay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. O§AL OR§ER (Fassed or! 11‘“ February. 2998) \i‘ “.1 p ORAL GRDER {?assed on 11'“ Februam 2&8) Learned oounsei appearing tor the petitioners submits that this matter is squarely covered by the order dated 27—6-2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No, 3566 of 2007 ( Loknath Patei Vs. State of Ch‘namsgar‘n and oihers) (Annexure PM} ! 2) Learned counsei appaaring for the respondenteiS‘ta‘Ie submits that in absence of the appointment order‘ it cannot be verified asto whether the cases of Learned counsei further submits that in the event, the cases of the petitioners are covered by the decision in the matter of Loimath Patel (supra), the petitioners may be entitieo to the same reiief. the petitioners are sauareiy covered by this decision or not. 3) in View or‘ foregoing, the petitioners are at ii'oerty to make a representation pointing out the dates of appointment and how the same is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Loknath Patei (supra). 4) Aocordingiy, the petition is disposed of. xz,n‘