c^/^z- IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W. P.(S). N0.5-^'g /2006 PETITIONER ^ ^•••' -i/r>-y ^>y^ •<'.-7X^''"^..•••' 01 .^-^•"'' ?;'-'*"<^'1' ^'r ,.i^v ^^ AS':" RESPONDENT ^l^" Teekam Lal Sinha / S/o Shri Narayan Sinha . Age about48years, Village-Sarkhi Post-KolarTehsil -Abhanpur Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) 2. DistrictEducationOfficer/ Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner most humbly submits as under:- Y^^^^^^^S (S> HISH COURT OF WHATTLS6AW AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : Ateghantrth yadav Versus : StorteSovt.ofChhottisgurhAflno'ther W. P.fSlNo. 5636 of 2006 : Sayadhar Prusnd Sahu Respondents Petitioner : Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of OihattKgarh Aano'ther W. P.faNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner : Ramuahanhnr 6upta Versus Reapondents : StxrteStwt.ofChhatMagerhAano'ther W. P.faNo. 8638 of 2006 Petitionw : Tcekam Lal Sinha Versus Reapondcnts : State6ovt.af ChhattugurhAanolhcr W. P. fS) No. 5639 of 2006 : Smt. Sunita Pnl Versus : Stutc 6wt. of Chhattisgarh A another W. P.fSlNo. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner Reapondents Petitioner Mahboob an Quraishi Veraus Reqwndcnts : State fiwt. of Chhatltogurh dano'ther W. P.faNo. 8641 of 2006 Retitioner : Smt. Jageaiiwri Bhd9el Weraus Reapondcrrts : Stetc 6wt. of Chhut I'isgurti A anrthw PetitiomBr Reapondents Petitioner W.P.faNo.S642<>f2006 ; Tulendra l&imnr Thiuri Vwrsus , : StuteSovt.ofChhatMsgarhAano'ther W.P.fS)No.S643of2006 : (lamavtar Yadawn Weraua Respondents : StBtteeovt.ofChhdttiagnrhAano'ther Pktitioner Rupondents Retitioner Respohdents Pktitioner Respondents Petrtioner Respondents Retitioner Responduvts Petitwner Rcapondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondarts Retitionw D»innA»w4»jn+< W. P. fS) No. 5644 of 2006 : Anuj Ram Sahu Veraus : Statefiovt.ofChhttttiagarhAano'rtw W.P.f5lNo.5646<»faX)6 : Rnycndru Kumer 6up*n Versus : State6ovt.ofChhattiS9orhd<n*rth®' W. P.fSiNo. 5647 of 2006 ; 5hai'adTwiwri Versus : StuteSovt.ofChhffMisyirhAcno'ther W.P.fSlhto. 5648 of 2006 : MnhenclFaPrasadShultla Versus : Shrt«6wt.ofCWicttisgarhA«N»'lh»- W.P.rSlNo.5673ofa)06 fiunbheoahan Sahu Verais ; State 6ovt. of Chhattisgnrh A onc'thcr W. P. fSl No. 5674 of 2006 ; 5nt. Jaya Tiwori Versus ; Statefiovt.ofChhattisgarhAano-thcr W.P.fSlNo. 5675 of 2006 Tuto Ram Chandrakar Versus Storte 6ovt. of ChhanMgarh Aarwther W. P.faNo. 5676 of 2006 : tomesh Kunar Verma Verais : Statefiovt.ofChhattiagtrhAana'ther And W. P.fSiNo. 5677 of 2006 Versus OhanaayPatel Stute 6wt.cf CWKrttiagarh Aanolher "^ Sinsto Bmich: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sutfak K. AgnihBtri. Shri Ajoy Shrivustwa, Advocate for •the Pfctitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, t>y. 6ovt. Adwcute for •thc re^ponderrts/State. OR&ER (26th October. 2006) 1. Leamed counael appecring for Ihe petitionws aubmrts Ifwt Nihile dwrking as Assistant TeachwsA/pper Oivision Tcachers/Leehintrs, Ihe petrtwners hanc 9one on trahw^ to improve Iher quaKfications on thcir acn expuues and acquirwl B. Ed7B.TJ Examnation Certifkate. Tlie present writ petitions, being WPJtS) Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006. 5638/2006. 8639/2006. 8640/2006. 5641/2006, 5642/2006. 5643/2006, 5644/Z006, 5646/2006. 5647/2006. 5648/2006, 5673/2006,5674/2006, 56TO/2006, 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 inwlw ainular facta ond common quBStion of luw. Thus, -these petitions are bcing diaposed of by •this conunon order. According to leamed cnunsel for Ihe petitiomers, Ihe petitioners are entitled to Iwo ndvnnce incremen'te in vie—ef •thedecision of •this Cowt h •the cnae of Yaahinnt Kunnr Ettwrudtiu^j Vs. AAumcipal Corponrtwn, Durg ond awther {2006 CEQ IWJK.-C696}. 'This Court in Ihe case of Yaahtiunt Kuniar Bharudwaj Va. Municipal Corporortion, Durg and awrtw ^ (5upra). caroe *o -the concluswn Ihait •the teachcrs. who had obtnuwd B.Ed./B.TJE. Examhwtion CBrHffcate on his own expenscs. are covered by 1+ie arcular duted 24.12.98 isued by •the State Swemment of Madhya PradMh. 4. Leumed counsel for •the petitionera further aibnuts •rtwt Ihe facts and qucstion of law involved in th«present caass ore squarely covered by decision of -this Court' h Ihe cnae of yoahwont Kumur Bharad>«ny Vs. Atoinicjpal Corporotion, Ourg and another (5upra), to which leumad coumel dppuring for •the redpandenta fnirly conce«tesand agreea nri'th 'riNS dwermcnt nwde by leamed counsel appearin9 for Ihe p»titioners. 5. Accordin9ly, Ihe writ petitiont are allwd in terms of •Ihe ordw passed in Ihe case of Yaahiiwnt Kunur BhanidNKy Vs. <Aunicipal Corponition, Dur9 and ano'ther (Supra), aibjact t» verificution of Ihe fact ca *o mhethcr •th«petitiona's hnwe acquired B. Ed7B.TJ. Buiminutian Cn^ificate on Iheir own expenita or not. No order as to costa. 6. Acopy of •this ordcr be plocad on record of o'ther cunnBdad writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge