1_11 the Honble High Court Bilaspur gi Judicature (C.G.) 9i Chhattishgarh g; WP. No. pwqf 2006 SINGLE BENSH Som Nath Bhandari, aged 40 years?’ Son of Shri Sewata Ram Bhandari, Assistant Village Kanglutola, Teachen Govt. Tribal Primary Biock Mohala, Schoo‘, District Rajnandgoan (CG) Versus 1. The State Government of Chhattishgarh, / Resgondents .; ..... Through Tribal Welfare the Secretary, Department Ministry? 2. The Education Officer, Mohaia 5“ District Rajnandgaon (CG) D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C(31) 42 3' EiocK Education §Ftricmf fry; Writ Prohibition mg Petition issuance and under 9f fog: Articles WRIT other Mom,“ it; Suitable ggé {It}; @ nature f UU‘H- ggz M gjgfgg g g1; QuJ‘WgvK/M. MANDAMUS writs, Constitution order Q1: certiamri, gflmiia orders, / x irection Q; Directions. ’/ D XI‘HC-78 :52 @ yaammww€ Wmafmmwg w p Lswo was—M mm. 'Ct'tocOOOOOOO‘OO aim» mm(W) 3Rm$a%aa w 09nL nm 5hri Ajay Shriiiastava, A smavy5.mwwhno. _Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt Advacaf . Heard. Perused fh¢ records. ' Common order dicfafi‘ed separafely. . A copy of fhis order be F laced on record. f mma§w§ $ WWW§mm > $mm‘m :Svocafe for fhe Petifionzrs‘. Advacan General wifh Smf. for the respondeMs/Sfafe. in open Court paésed Sd— Judge Satlsh K Agmho“ 1 , ETD. @D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 4094 of 2006 W. P. No. 4095 of 2006 W. P‘ (s) No. 4486 of 2006 w. P. (s) No. 5085 of 2005 Ku‘ Monohamn Shanda Versus Pe'rifioner Respondenfs Sfafe Govt of Chhuffisgar'h & o‘rhers r And W. P. (s) No. 5086 of 2005 Pefi'rioner i Shri Tahalmm Dewangan Versus Respondents : Sfa're Govt of Chho’rfisgar-h & o‘rhers Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sufish K. Agnihorfri. 5hri Ajay Shrivasmva, Advooa‘re for The Pe'riTioners. 5hri V.V.S. Moor‘rhy, Dy. Advoca're Genera! wi'rh Sm‘l’. Anju Ahuja Dy. Govt Advocafe for fhe respondenTs/Sfafe. ' Pe‘l’i'fioner : Komul Kumar Meshram Versus Respondenfs : The Sfa‘re Govt of Chha‘f‘fisgarh other-s Pe+ifioner i 50m Nu‘rh Bhandari Versus Respondenfs The 511112 Govt of Chhaffisgarh & ofhers Pe'ri‘rioner : Shri Jaggumm Marge Versus Respondenfs : The Sfa‘Ve Govt of Chhu'r'risgarh & another @ ORDER (9“ oc+ober, 2006) . Learned counsel appearing for The pefi‘rioners submi‘rs ‘H'Ia‘l' while working as Assisfanf Teachers/Upper Division Teachers, 'fhe pe'l'i'l’ioners have gone on mining To improve +heir qualifications on 'rheir own expenses and acquired B.Ed./B.T.I Examina'iion Cerfifica‘fe. . The presenf wri'i' pefi‘l’ions, being W.P. Nos. 4094/2006, 4095/2006, W.P.(s.) Nos. 4486/2006, 5085/2005 and 5086/2005 involve similar facis and common ques'iion of law. Thus, These pe'l'i'rions are being disposed of by fhis common order. . According 1'0 learned counsel for ‘fhe pefi'l’ioners, 1'he pe‘i'i'l’ioners are enfifled +0 iwo advance incremeni’s in view of The decision of This CourT in The case of Yashwanf Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal CorporaTion, burg and anoTher {2006 (H) MPJR—CG 96}. This CourT in The case of VashwanT Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal CorporaTion, Durg and anoTher (Supra), came To The conclusion ThaT The Teachers, who had obTained B. Ed./B.T.I. ExaminaTion CerTificaTe on his own expenses, are covered by The circular daTed 24.12.98 issued by The STaTe GovernmenT of Madhya Pradesh. . Learned counsel for The peTiTioners furTher submiTs ThaT The focTs and quesTion of law involved in The presenT cases are squarely covered by decision of This CourT in The case of @ Yashwan‘r Kumar Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipa! Corporn‘fion, Durg and anofher- (Supra), f0 which learned counsel appearing for 1’he responden'rs faMy concedes and agrees wi'l'h the avermen'l' made by Ieamed counsel appearing for the pefifioners. . Accordingly, +he wri‘l' pe‘l’ifions are allowed in ferms of lhe order passed in 'H'ie case of Yashwan‘i' Kumar- Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and ano‘l'her (Supra). subjecl' f0 verifica'l‘io’n of 'rhe fad as “to whefher 'lhe pefifioners have acquired B. Ed./B.T.I. Examina'lion Cer'l'ifica'fe on ‘lheir own expenses or no‘l’. No order as Subhash To cosfs. pe‘l'i'lions. _ i Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotr‘i Judge a . A copy of This order be placed on record of ofher connec‘l’ed writ l