WWW—W cg Qi 3mm Emw (D IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1C.G.[ W. P. [Si No. tQ$i of 2011 PETITIONERS :1./ Rajendra Kumar Sahu§lsmi o Keshav Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years, R/o Village 85 Post~ Bhindra, Tahsil—Kurud, District— Dhamtari (c.G.) 2. Purushottam Lal Sahu, S/o Ramkishun Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o Village & Post- Marau, Tahsil—Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G'.) 3. Kamleshwar Prasad Chandrakar5/0 Kahikram Chandrakar, aged about 37 years, R/o Village 8r, Post—Shjvnikala, Tahsil—Kurud, District-Dhamtarl (C.G‘) 4. Madan Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Shri Shivmangal Singh Chandrakar, aged about 31 years, R/o Village 85 Post— Achhoti, Tahsil-Krud, District~ Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Rajendra Chaturvedi, aged about 28 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar (Nakta), Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 6. KuleShwar Sahu, S/o Shri Jat Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village-Sakri, Post—Chandi, Tahsil—Abhanpur, District~Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. gtate of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) d u ga @ C2) 2.[Janpad Panchayat, Kurud, through the Chief Executive . Officer, District—Dhalntan’ (C.G.) /, 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA x.) x" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1081 of2011 Rajendra Kumar Sahu & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: ’ Shri Prateek Shanna, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thalmr, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER ORAL (I’assed on 24 day of February, 201 1) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to take recourse to statutory appellate forum as provided under Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007. Learned counsel appearing for other side has no obj ection. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated liberty, if so advised. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge