C{> S-69;- In the Honble High Court of Chhattishoarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P.(s). No. ^, % J 200^- u—*' Petitioner \srY \^y.^ 'Y-:'^r -:-^"^; c^ ..'' p^ ^:^ ^ 6^>\Y^ ^^/^- ^ y Respondent y^"~ f'/ .y <T ^^ ja. ', .^. -• QU» (^TTulsi Ram Sahu, Aged 39 Years S/o Shri Gobru Ram Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primery School, Kanari Gurur Block, District Durg (C.G.) Domar Singh Nishad, Aged 40 Years S/o Shri Dhani Ram Nishad, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primery School, Kenergondi Gurur Block, District Durg (C.G.) (3) Madho Ram Markam, Aged 40 Years r' S/o Shri Latel Singh Markam Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primery School, Kariyatola Block Gurur ,Distt. Durg. (4) Man Singh Markhande Aged 40 Yrs., ^ S/0 Shri Mohan Lal Markhande Assistant Teacher Govt. Primery School, Bharrepara Palari Block Gurur, Distt. Durg (5) Rekh Ram Mandavi ,Aged 49 years /' S/0 Shri Ram Ratan Mandavi Assistant Teacher, Primery School,Nagjhar Block Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Versus (1) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through:- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (-2) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Durg (C.G.) •(3) District Education Qfficer, Durg. (C.G.) Writ petition under articles 226 of theConstitution pf India for issuance ofwrit in the nature of MANDAMUS. HI&H COURT OF CHHATTrSSARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S} No. 780 of 2007 Petitioner : Sohan Lal Raj Versus Respondents State ©ovemmentof Chhattisgarh and others And W. P.fS) No. 781 of 2007 Petitioners : Tuisi Ram Sahu and others Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh and ol+iers SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: AAr. Ajcy Shrivastava, Advocats for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. OR&ER {Possed on 1+iis 9 Day of February, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appear'ing for the petitioners as weil ns for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts of the present writ petition are similar to that of in W. P.(S) No. 7002/2006 f/ogeshwar Prasad Patanwar Vs. State of Chhtitt'isgarh A others), which was disposed of vide or-der dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P/4 & P/8). They furtiier submit that the question of law involved is aiso the same. ». 2. In view of the above-stated submissions made by learned counsel for •the parties, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of tiie order dated 15.12.2006, passed by this Courtin W. P.(S) No. 7002/2006 fyogeshwar Prasad Patanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others). No order as to costs. 3. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected writ petitions. Bi ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge w^_