»R .-4. -^ SBMfiS •"yr."; ?: ?!;N IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER ^^^.. ..-:%^s°^"" ..«-•'- ^^-:VB'\ \1<.»> ^^^y V- ?6'E RESPONDENT W. P.(S). N0.^%^'^/2006 ^'Tul endra KumarTiwari S/o Shri Amarnath Tiwari Age about47years, Village- Bhalujhulan Post-Kurud Tehsil - Dhamtari Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) , 2. District Education Officer Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner most humbly submits as under:- -^ •^^ @ o HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS&ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) No. 5635 of 2006 Pst'rtmner : Ateghcnath Yadw Versus Respondents : Shrte Sovt.of Chhattisgorh A anolher W.P.faNo.5636ofM06 Petitioner : Sujadhar Pruand Sahu Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of OihatMsgerh A ano-ther W. P.fSiNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner ftn : Ramaahanknr Supta Versus : Stutte6ovt.ofChha*tJa9orhAuwthcr W. P.faNo. 5638 of 2006 Petitioner : Teeknm Lnl Sinha Versus fteapondents : SteteSovt.ofChhattiagarhAano'thcr W. P.fStNn. 5639 of 2006 : Smt. SunitaPnl Petitioner Ri Versus : Statc6ovt.af ChhattisgarhAanolher W. P.fSlNo. 5640 of 2006 : ttahboob Khan Qwuiahi Ptetitwner : Weraus Responduits : State6wt.ofChh<»tti99<rhAano1her W. P.faNo. 8641 of 2006 Retitioner : Smt. Ja9esNinri Bhcgel Weraus Reapondents : StutBfiwt.ufChhattisgarhAaiothcr W. P.fS^No. 9642 of 2006 PetHioner : Tulendru Kumar Thiuri Veraus Reapondents : State 6ovt. of ChhatMagarh A anolher W.P.fS)No.S643of2006 Petitioner : liamavtw yadavu Veraua Reapondents : Stuteeovt.ofChhartKgnrfiAano'thcr '7%> Petitioner ReapondBnts Retitioner Respondcnts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondarta Petitioner Respondents Petitioner RBiKwnttenls Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reaponttents Petitioner Respondents W.P.faNo.B644<>f2006 : AiujRamSnhu Veraus : SluteSovt.afChhattjsyrhAawlhcr W. P.faNo. 5646 of 2006 Rayenahn KumaB'Suptn Versus : State 6ovt. of Chhattiagnrh A anolher W. P.rSiMo. 5647 of 2006 : Sharad TiNinri Versus : State 6ovt. of Chhattis9nrh A ano-riwr W. P.fSlNo. 5648 of 2006 : MnhwNlruPruaadShukla Versus : StutefiBVt.ofChhotMsgarhAawthcr W.P.fS)No.5673ofa)06 fiunbhooahan Sohu Versus ; Slnte 6<wt. of Chhattiagarh A anothcr W. P.fSlNo. 5674 of 2006 : 5nt. Jaya TiNiari Versus : Stutefiovt.ofChhcttiagcrhAanothw W. P.fSlNo. 5675 of 2006 : Tuto Ram Ch<ndnd<ar Versus State 6ovt. of CWwttiagarh Aanolher W. P.fftNo. 5676 of 2006 : Rameah Kumar Verme Veraus ; Sta*e6ovt.ofCWiattisgnrhAonu1her Aid W. P. f5»No. 5677 of 2006 Versus Ohanaay Pu*d Stata 6nvt. of Chhottiagarh A another Siigto Bmich: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satiak K. Agnihatri. Shri Ajoy 5hrivust(»a,Advocatc for •the Pfctitioners. Smt. Aiju Ahuja, Dy. 6ovt. Advocote for •Itw reapondcnts/Stat*. OROER (26th October. 2006) t. Leamed cpunset oppearing for •the petM'ioners submits •Hia* Nihile wiorking as Asastunt Teachcrs^Jpper Diviswn Teachera/Lechirws, •Ihe petitioners hanwgone on trainin9 +0 improve Iheir qualificatKms on •their ONH exputaes and ncquirwl B. Ed7B.TJ Examination Certificccte. The present writ petitions. bmng WP^ Noa. 5635/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006, 5638/2006. 8639/2006, 5640/2006. 5641/2006. 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006. 5647/2006. 5648/2006.5673/2006,5674/2006,5678/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 involve ainular facts and cwimon question of bi». Thus, these petHiona arc 6019 disposed of by Ihis comroon ordw. According to leamed counsel fwr •the petitioners, the petitjoners are urtitled to liim advnnce incrwnients in viw of •the decision of -this Court- in •the cade of ydahi*ant Kumnr Bharod*»ayVs. Municipal Corporation. Dur9 and aiwther {2006 OD tffiJK-CS 96}. Tliis Court in Ihe case of Yaahtiunt Kumar Bharadfaj Vs. Municipol Corporatkm, Durg and ano'tfaw ^ 4 (Supra), oame to Ihe conclusion Ihut •the teaGhcrs, who had obtained B.EcL/B.TJ. Examination Gertificorte on his own expenses, are cwered by •the drcular dnrted 24.1258 isawd by Ihe State ficvernment of Madhya PrudMh. 4. Leamed counael for •Ihe petitionws furfher aibmita •that •the facts and question of kn» inwlvwl in •rtw present caafs ore squordy cawnsd by ctecision of Ihis Court h Ihe aae of Yaah«»antKumur HwnidtKy Vs. Municipal Corponriion, Durg and ono-ther (Supra), to which leomed counaBl appurhg fw Ihe reapondents fourly conoectes and agrees twth •tiNS owerment made by leamuj counael appearirg for Ihe pctitionBrs. 5. Accordin^y, 1he writ petitions ore allowed in tBrms of Ihe order pussed in Ifee cnse of yaahmwnt l&inar Bnrad«K(j Vs. Uwmapid Corporartion, Durg aid ano'ther (Supn^, aubject t» vwification of the fcct as to uihB-rtier Itw petrtionera haw acquNwsl B. EcL/B.TJ. E»«aminuti«iCn'tificute on Iheir own expenaes or not. No order as to casta. 6. A copy of Ihis ordu- be pluad on recttrd of ather cBnnedad writpetjtions. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ablu