<-ia^- <. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(SINO. 7-^^?- /2006 PETITIONERS ^'^ ^ A'^-" 3. V- 1. Bhim Rao Bhaisare Aged about 38 Years, S/o Bharti Rao Bhaisare Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Muraki ( Dadhi), Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) y^?" '^" Bhumika Devi Ramteke, aged 37 years y'E!^"' .^.•' C;...--;"^^'...-' D/o Shri Jhadu Ram Ramteke Assistant Teacher, Govt.Prmimary School, Kacche Dafai, Rajhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Padmini Shandilya, Assistant Teacher Govt. Primary School /l-'.i"^-fc Chikhlakasa No. 2 Rajhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Usha Wadhmare, Assistant Teacher Govt. Primary Boys School, Dallirajhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Lalita Yadav, aged about 38 years D/o Shri Narsingh Yadav Assistant Teacher Govt. Primary School Chikhlakasa no.2 , Rajhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Jai Prakash Singh Thakur, S/o Ved Ram Thakur, Assistant Teacher, Govt. High School Chipra, Block Daundi, Distt.Durg (C.G.) 4. 5. 6. RESPONDENTS 1. 2. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Insturction Department Raipur(C.G.) District Education Officer District Durg (C.G.) Deputy Director ( Education ) Distt. Durg (C.G.) Deputy Director Public Education, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) Deputy Director Public Education Distt. Kawardha (C.G.) Deputy Director Public Educatuion Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) v WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/IBr OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA 3. / 4. 5. ^ 6. 7. / Q) ia "^ 1 SulAu HI6H COW.r OT CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.fSI No. 7627 of 2006 Petitioners ; BhimRao Bhaisare and others Versus Respondents : State of ChhattisgGrh &others SB; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present; Mr. Sudhir Verma, counsel for the petitioners. AAr. Arvind Dubey, Panel lawyer for the reqsondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 5th bay of February, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as wetl as leamed Panel lawyer appearing for the State/respondents jointty submit that the facts of the present writ petition are similar to that of in W. P.(5) No. 5191/2006 (Har Prasad Kurre and others Vs. State of Chhatti^arh <& others), which wo^ disposed of vide order dated 3 »- October, 2006. They further submit that thequestion of law involved is atso the same. 2. In view of the above-stated submissions made by leamed counselfor the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order ckted 3rd October, 2006 passed by this Court in W. P.(S) No. 5191/2006 (Har Prasad Kurre and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others).No order as to costs. Sd/- Sa&sbK.Agmtom Judge I 1 '