HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (s) No. 2483 of 2007 Petitioner Raj Nath Singh Paikra S/o $hri Kendu Ram Paikra, Aged about 3O years, Assistant Teacher, Primary Schoo! Ketma (Morga), Dist. Korba .Chhattisgarh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh Through the $ec-retaly. Tribal We!fare Department, D.K.$. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, _ Mantraiaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 Commissioner. Tribal Welfare Chhattisgarh Government, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. k 4 Block Development Education Officer, Block Korba, Dist. Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr, Vinay Pandey, Panel iawyer for the respondents/State. ’O RDER (Passed on this 23’“ day of April, 20W) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as welt as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another {2096 (l!) MPJR-CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 03042006. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 2. ln subsequent cases. i.e., Wri Petition (5.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh t Kumar Vanna vs. The state Govt. of Chhattisgarn and ermine]? and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-1 2-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Béard of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in‘ Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenclature of the 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. Cenihcate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (5.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another) (Supra). Accordingly; the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anisother (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired D. Ed. Examination Certificate on his own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 & 1.3.1999 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge