Wm HEG‘vH CGUR’E‘ @F CHEATTESGARH : EILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1258 Of 2005 Petitioners Versus. Raspondents l. 0g 44, go 3. ’i’Tilochan Pmdhan, S/o Bhaskar Pradhan'. ag€d about 34 years, Rwident of Vilag€ EQiarm'ya‘bahal, Pos3t Kalemia, Poljm Station/Talwi‘l Samipah’, Dist. Mahasamund (CG) Mambodh Vishal) S/o Jalandhar Vishal, aged about 31 years, Rio Village Tihan'yali} RC). gialenda, Block/Tehsil Saraipaii, Distm'ct MahaSamund {Chhattisgarm Stat6 of Chhattisgarh, through S€cr€tary, Panchayat and Social Weifare Department; Maxnralaya, Raipur (C1111attisgarh) Collector, President] Chairman, Education Guarantea Scheme, Coordination Committee, Mahasamund. Distu'ct Project Co~coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shikeha Mission, Mahasamund (C.G.} Chief Executive OiEcer, Vice Presmem/Vice Chainnan, Zila Panchayat, Educaticm Guarantee Scheme, (la—ordination Committee, Mahasamund (C. G.) Chief Ekecutive 0&icer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, Block/Tahsil— ‘$araipali, Disirict Mahasamund (CG) (Writ. Petition Under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of lndia) (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri K. N. Nancie, Advoca‘te‘for the peiitioner. Shyi Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Ms imita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. l and 2,1 State. ORBER (Paseed on thiS 19m day ofJune, 2009) Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the facts involved in this writ petition are identical to that of in Writ Petition (S) No. 1711 of 2008 { Lalit Kumar Sav 8a others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others). It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 1.4.2008 has disposed of the matter with a directioii to the authority that if a reoresentation is made, the f 2 / same may be considered on its own merits, in accordanee with law. The petitioner prays for the same order. On perusal, this Court is of the View that the order dated 1—4—2008, which was passed in WP. (S) No.1711 of 2008 may be passed in this writ petition also, having regard to the fact that the facts are identical and question of law involved is also the same. Accordingly, accordance with law. It is ordered, accordingly. In View of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Thakur :Satish K. Agnihotri} Judge