C^ (0^^- co WTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.l N0. 06 /2010 PETITIONER: .<&.^y^ .^s- ^ ^.r^^' '-w\^ ^•'•'JtS /' Smt. Clementina Tirkey, D/o Shri Joseph Tirkey, Aged about 45 years, Upper Division Teacher, Goveminent Girls Higher Secondary School Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Educatonal Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' The District Education OfRcer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. ' The Principal Govemment Girls Higher Secondary School Saraagarh, Distdct-Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. (O HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTIS< AT' BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETI'nQNIS) ,Na 80bpf2010 Smt. Clementina Tirkev. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofCliliattisgarh & Otliers. Writ Petition Under Articie 226 OfThe Constitution Qflndia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satfah K. Agniliotri, J. Present: Shri Dhani Ram Patei, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi-i M.P.S.Bhatia, DeputyG.A. forthe State/respondeats. (Passed on 25th day of Februap/, 2010) With consent, leamed counsel tbrthe parties were heai-d fmaliy. 1. By tiiis petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments fromthe date ofpassmg ofD.Ed exaniinatioii, on his own expenses, during his service period. 2. Sliri Patel, leamed counsel appearine for the petitioner submits that the issue involved m flie present case is no longer res integra as fhe same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Scaena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. as well as by this Court in the matter of Yash\vant Kr.mar Bharadwaj v. Mtmicipal Corporation, Durg & anothef aud Gopesh Kt'mar Vemw. v. The State Govt. afChkattisgarh and another^ . 3. Shri Patel farther submits fliat the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be pemiitted to make '2009(mMPJR(SC)59 220"6(u)MPJR-CG9fr "ArP(S)No.4130of2005 ^\ 2 a representation to deeide his case m the light of atbrestated decision, subject to verification ofthe fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certiticate on his own expenses duringthe course ofhis service. 4. Leamed counsel appeaiiag for the State/'respondents subnuts that in the event, tlie petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance witii law and m the iight ofthe decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as tliis Court in Tashwant Kumar Bharadwaj aad GopeshKumar Verma (supra), vvithiti a period offour weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representatioa. 5. Iii view offoregoing, according to tlie leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit 1