lIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGABH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONERS RE8FONDENTS WRIT PET1110N (S) No. 3U97 pl2007 : 1. Keshav Prasad Patel g/o Niranjan Prasad Patel, Aged about 42 yeai's, Presently posted aiid workine as Assistant Teacher in Tribal Wettare Primary School, Konpara, Tahsil Ghar^iora, District Raigarh [C.G.] 2. Mohan Lal Chouhan S/o Baratu Ram Chouhan, aged about 39 years, presently posted aiid workinf as Assistant Teacher in Middle Schooi, Saraipali, Tahsil Oharghora, District Raigarh [C.G.] 3. Narayan Prasad Rathia S/o Kunj Ram Rathia, aged about 38 years, Presently posted and working as Assistaiit Teacher in Middle School Bulekera, Tahsil Gfaarghora, District Raigwh [C.G.] 4. Satish Shrivastava S/o Devendra Lal Shrivastava, aged about 36 years, presently posted and working as Assistant Teacher in GMs Primary School Kudumkela, Talisil Ghar^tiora, District Raigarh [C.G.1 5. Krishna Biswas S/o Surendra Nath Biswas, aged ahout 39 years, presently posted and workuig as Assistant Teacher in Primary Scbool DumaqiaU, Tahsil Gharghora, District Raigarh [C.G.] 6. Nand Kaleshwar Sai, S/o Manjhu Sai, Aged about 43 years, Presently posted and workiiig as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Teram, Tah. Gharglioda, Distnct Raigarh (CG) VER8US : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throu^i the Secretary; Departmeut of Edueation, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, Dist. Raigarii (CG) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) WRH' PETITION LWDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTLTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon'bleJustfce Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Santosh Kumar Tivrari, Advocate fbr the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advoeate General for tlie State/ respondents, OKDER (Passed oa 12°'day ofS'une. 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as &r the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question oflaw involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Iharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporatlon, Durg and another {2W6 (II) MPJR-CG 96), which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert fhe said submission. 2. In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of2005 (Gopesh Kumw Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, purauant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus ofDiploma in Education Exanunation, it was clarified that the noinenclature of Ihe Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (8.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Vemw vs. The State Gwt. qfChkattisgarh and aiwthw) (Supra). 3; Accordingly, Ifae writ petition is allowed in terms ofthe order passed in the case of Yashwant Kuniar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dm^ and another (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the oetitioners have aequired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and further whefher they have been paid two advance inorements or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thalair r