mw ^cst-n G-^ tcrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(:S)NO. f3/ /20e6-o7 WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIONER ^ Sagar Sai, aged about 44 years, son of Shri Suresh Sai, Assistant Teacher, <5\'^"\Z^!C<?" ..••••"" Government Tribal Primary Schooi .fc-'''<'5..\*<'ii'\">.-?-•'' Patratoli, Jashpur Nagar, Distt. Jashpur ^-••" ^.^':\\ •fff- A RESPONDENTS ^' 1. ^a^0^ <&^2' ^^ VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of - Tribal Welfare, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 01. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER t- -;- HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S\ No. 117 of 2007 Petitioners : AAnnsingh Khande and olhers Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others W. P.fS) No. 118 of 2007 Petitioners : Tejram Bhagat ond o-thers Versus Respondents : State of Chhattis9arh and others W. P.fSI No. 121 of 2007 Petitioner : Sonjay Kumar Sinha Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-iS9arh ond ono-ther W. P.(S) No. 126 of 2007 Petitioner : Bhuvneshwar Pnisad Pradhan Versus ftespondents : State of Chhartisgarh and others W. P.fS) No. 127 of 2007 Petitioner : Kulranjon Ekto Versus Respondents : S-tate of Chhaftisgarh and others W. P.(S) No. 128 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Bharti Bai Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P.fSl No. 129 of 2007 Petitioner : Phibs Akshay Mukut Tig9a Versus Respondents : State of Oihaftisgarh and cnother W. P.(S) No. 130 of Z007 Petitioner : Smt. Prostidi Bhaga* Versus fteqiondents ; State of Chhattisgarh ond another r W. P.(S) No. 131 of 2007 Petitioner : 5ogar Sai Versus Respondents : State of Chhatl-isgarh and olhers W. P.(S) No. 133 of 2007 Petitkmer : Inus Bek Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-iS9arh and ano-t+ier W. P.(S) No. 134 of 2007 Petitioner : Baliram Bha9at Versus Respondents : State of ChhattiS9<irh and another W. P.fSl Nto. 135 of 2007 Petitioner : Avinash Chandra Xdco Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-tS9orh ond others W. P.fSl No. 136 of 2007 Petitkmer : Smt. ShashikalaBhagat Versus Reqiondents : State of ChhatMsgarh and another W. f.(S\ No. 137 of 2007 Petitioner : Chhanckiram Bh<>9at Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P.fS) No. 139 of 2007 Petitioner : Ku. Clementina Tigga Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and ono-ther W. P.(S) No. 145 of 2007 Petitioner : Krishna Ram Patel Versus Respondents : State ofOihatl-isgarh and o-thers W. P.fS) No. 147 of 2007 Petituner : Laxminarayon Patel Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh ond another W. P.fS) No. 149 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Maxi Mitiyani Toppo Versus Respondents : State of Oihattisgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 150 <rf 2007 Petitioner : Smt. ftajmoni Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh and o-thers W. P.(S) No. 151 of 2007 Petitioner : Chamru Kam Nogdeo Versus ftespondents : S-tate of Chhattisgarh ond others W. P.(S) No. 159 of 2007 Petitioner : Sanesh ftam Pradhon Versus Respondents : State of Chhaittisgarh and onother W. P.(S) No. 161 of 2007 PetitMner : Chhotelal Khonna Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 165 af 2007 Petitioner : Ramkumar Choudhari Verajs Respondents : State of Chhatfrisgarh oaid another And W. P.(S) No. 168 of 2007 Petitioner ; Brijmohon Noyak Versus Respondents : State of ChhattiS9arh ond anolher r^ SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K; Ayiihutri. J Present: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mrs. Anju Ahu^i, Oepu-ty Swemment Advocate, Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer, Ms. Sunita Jain, Po»iel1-awyer for the respondents/State. OR D E R (Passed on this 17> &ay of Jonuary, 2007) 1. Ledmed counsel oppearing for the petituners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that Ihe facts of the present writ petitions are similar to -that of in W. P. (S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari ond o-thers vs. State Sovemment of Chhatt'is9arh & others), which was allowed vide order ckited 7.11.2006. They further submit Ihat the question of ICUK involved is also the same. 2. In view of the above-started submissions made by leamed counsel for •the parties, these writpetitions are allowed m terms of the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. (5.) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwori ond others vs. State Sovemment of Chhatti^arh & others). No order as to costs. 3. A copy of •this order be ploced on record in other cowiected writ petition. Subha<th Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge