High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6223/2010dismissed

Anand Ram Sidar And Others v. State Of Cg And Otherss

2021-07-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.6223 of 2010

1. Anand Ram Sidar S/o. Jagbadhu Sidar, aged about 35 years, working as Shiksha Karmi _ II, High School, Bonda, Block - Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

2. Shushanto Bhoi, S/o. Goverdhan Bhoi, aged about 35 years, working as Shiksha Karmi -II, High School, Donpripali, Block - Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

3. Bodhram Patel, S/o. Surat Patel, aged about 32 years, working as Shiksha Karmi - II, High School, Bonda, Block - Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

4. Thakur Ram Patel, S/o. Punnilal, aged about 33 years, working as Shiksha Karmi - II, High School, Dongra, Block - Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

5. Kishori Chandra Patel S/o. Hemanand Patel, aged about 36 years, working as Shiksha Karmi - II, High School, Bar, Block - Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

6. Smt.Sapna Dubey, W/o. Dhiraj Dubey, aged about 32 years, working as Shiksha Karmi - II, Middle School, Vasdavr, Block - Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

7. Rakesh Dubey S/o. Udara Dubey, aged about 34 years, working as Shiksha Karmi - I, Government Higher Secondary Girls School, Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

8. Padam Lal Sidar, S/o. Chotu Sidar, aged about 37 years, working as Shiksha Karmi - I, High School, Bonda, Block - Baramkela, Distt.Raigarh (CG) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Ministry of School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG)

2. District Education Officer, Office of District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (CG)

3. Director, Department of Public Instruction, Raipur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : None present For Respondents/State : Mr.Ravi Kumar Bhagat,Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

26.7.2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. When the passed over case is called out for hearing second time, none present for the petitioners. No representation is made.

3. In view of above, this Court has left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/-