c^ •'^t— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. rs) NO. rb1^\ /2011 PETITIONER . \ ^.}"<^^ ^\0^-'-:;?£^'".. '^^^ ^e' RESPONDENTS: VERSUS 1. 2. 3. Rahim Mohammad Khan S/o Ramjan Mohammad Khan, Aged about 41 years., Upper Division Teacher, Middle School Jaitpupi, Block- Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham- (C.G.) State of CKhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The District Education officer^ Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) Block Education officer, Bodla, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF C^HATTI^OAiai AT BULA8PUR SB:HQN*BLBMR.JUSTICB|>RITIMKERraWAKBR W.P.ISt.NO. 3821/2011 PBTITIONBR RB<M?<M»DBNTs versus RAim Mohammad Khais State of Ctihattisgarh Ofhers Shri Deepak Jain, counsel &>r fhe petitioxxer. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for fhe Slate. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITWraON OP INDIA ORDBR (18.07.2011.) The petitioncr^ who was appomted on fte post of Assistaiit Teacher zmder the School Mucation Department on 22/2,1989 (Annexiire P/1} is aggrieved by fhe action of fhe respondente ia aot addiag twro advaace mcrenients ia his salaiy GVCTI thoi^h he did his D.Ed. fi-om C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Maadal, Raipiir at hm own cost ia ffae year 2006 afiter, seeldag penxdssion for the saaie fmm. the deparfcment. Counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat the petitioner is entifled for two advaace iacreEaieiite as he had obtained D,Ed Examiaation certfficate, m accordance with fhe provisions of Cwoular dated 24.12,98 aad ia view of the judgments of Honyble Snpremie Court ia fhe matter of State of M,P. & Anotfaer Vs» Badrmarayan Aehaiya and ofhers reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar BhanAwaj Vs. Municipal Corporaition^ Diti^ and anofher reported m 20(^5 (II) MPJR 96 (CG). On fhe ofher hsnd, counsel fcr the State szsbmits t3iat erstwfaile State of Madhya Pradesh vMe circnlar dated 22.10.1964 allcwexl advaace iacrements only to fhose govemment ser^aats wlio proceeded for tiamiag up to 22. 10,1964 whether at his owii cost or at fhe goveramexit cost Howevery who proceeded on trmnmg aa or alter 23»10.1964 caa get two anjaual iacremeBts onty ifthe toraiximg ia at / / /^ ^ / ^^/ %^ ^"..^ his cost aad not at the cost offhe Ooveniment. This circuter ofdated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Govermnent vide iiotification dated 16.6.1973 amended M,P/Non- Ga2€Ue Class-II Educatianal Services (Noii-coUege Senricesjl Recruitmeitt and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualfcScation of B,TJ. or B.Ed degree for appoiatment on the post ofAssistant Teacfaer, The petitioner would be entifled for advaaee mareixients only m fhe condidon that he had obtamed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degpee at fais own cost during seryice after obtammg penaission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify tlie above position, circiilars have already been issued on 6,2,2007 aad 021 30.1.09. Facts, as detaffled above, are not m dispiite. This Court io. (he matter ofYashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj (supxa) elaboratety discussmg fhe circulars dated 24.12,98, 1,3.99 aad relying upon ffaie jixdgmexit of fhe Honyble Apex Coiirt in the matter of Badrmarayaa Achaxya's case (supra) has held fhat teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be exititled to two advaace iticreio.ents on obtaiiiing B,Ed examiaation certt&cate after 22.10.1964, as ffae ciETcnlar dated 22,10.1964 does not prescrlbe any outer limit of fhe penod of obtainmg B.Bd, M.Ed_& B.T.I. eertificate. It faas been fmther held that circular dated 1.3.99 is appUcable to only Assijgtaxit Teacfaa'8 (LDT) and not to ofher teachers (UDT^. Shri Thakur fedrty aubmits tfaat priixiciple of law laid down m Yashwaiit Kumar Bharadwaj^ case (supra} has attemed finality and case of the petitioner m fhis petitioii is also squarely covered tey tlxe above judgment as also circular dated 24,12-1996. For fhe aforesaid rcasons^ the petitioner m eatiflcd to ftxe payment of two advaace mcrements from fhe date of dc^laration of fhe petitioner^s D.Ed, exammation result. The res|^ndents are accoxdingly directed to make payment of two advance iticremexits to the petitioner fi-om the date ofhis pa^sing D,Ed. exammation, wifhisi a period of four moiiths from today* Hcwever, fhis oider shall be subject to aU verifications made by fhe State regaidmig facts pleaded in fhe petitfon. No onler as to costs, Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge