SB'B-'e'^rB-li!1 In the Honble High Court of Judicature of Chhattishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P.No. /"^C^~ 2006 ^ ') * •v^ ^?^s^us^^"" -^^<c^--:x'?;"" '• ",_ A^*-"" \MlGi' ^ ^ '^' Petitioner Respondents / M.L. Deshmukh, aged 50 years Son of Shri Deendayal Deshmukh Assistant Teacher, High School, Urla, Block, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. The State Govemment ofChhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) fVnt Petition uhder Artictes 226 gnd 227 of ?A^ CmwtituUoii o[Indw fw the^ issuance of WRIT in the nature of 'MANDAMUS^ certwran^ Prohibition and for other Suitable writ or writs, order or orclers^ Direction or Directions. 'S^ 'tiWI^, ©fli'H'IS,IqMiy^' 'WWIT^'Ri^T l^t cf>l 'f^iiaisil^? 'BRNr^ifel sii^i ^RireR"gft^ 9-5-2006 *|i!r<')-4!-( 'WRJf •? 'fe^t ^? arfigi; SIT^SI Aiir. AJay Shrivastava, eounsei f^r the pstil'ioner. Mr. &.K. BerlwQi, Deputy Advoijate &enerci with ttr. Sushii Dubey, Sovt. .Advocate for the State/respondenta. Heard both the counsel. The main orieVance of the pel Articies 226 and 227 of the Constitu^ B.Ed. examination at his oven expenses the yeflr 1990-91, he is not beinu fitioner' raised in thid wr>it Betition uncler ^fon of India, is that in spite of passina the Ivide statement of marks Mnnexiure P-&)in tiven the benefit of two edvance qrade incremenTs. The case uf the peTitioner is t} appointed on 2S-2-19S5 03 Aasiatsnt of the petition that the petitioner ha| and thei-efore, he isentjtted for two persons Dhirendra Kumar AtishraiS otlj iner'ements as per the oi'der duted Adfflinistrative Tribunai. On the laat da+e of hearing i.ej behalf of the State/respondents by 1 petition is being disposed of based o»j petitionei". Itiat the peTltioner is B.Sc. & B.Ed. He was P'eacher. I+ has been mentioned iri put-u-.6 b passed 8.Ed. exttmination at his ovmcost ladvance iriCfemenl-3, and sinfiilar'iy situated lers were aiven the benefit of ti»oadvance 19-4-2001 (Annexure P-3) of the State 25-4-2006, notiee has been aceepted on he Deputy Sovt. Advoeate and two weeks' ime was aought to file rep!/. Ti!l tod^iy, no repiyhasbeen filed. Therefore. the the pieadings and documents riied bythe XI-HC-22 • sn^ca;; 'fe;TRi'3fl^r wtiwgffg .».^- Soma K€^ ^: ^^ '^qraRPT, w-aww, w^M'-y. ^,^^:.m.^ 'lq^a' 317^1'^RITWafttT ^TqfepN •STTOff 4-fs^tf^K ^7 aifitTCT OT^T Perusai of Anwxwe P-4 dut^d 24-12-1998 i'ssued by tte Direetor, 5choo! Eciucation, Madhya Pradesh, shows^hst the teachers vaho have passed' the B.Ed. exuminution before 22-10-1964 (4d the teachers who have passes' the B.Ed. exan'iination aftsr 22-10-1964 on thsir' owi'n exoenses shisti bs entitled for t«»'o graeie incpements. Perusai of Ann^xure- P-6, stutement 6f marks, issued by the Deouty Reaistrai'. ^*n-<*y* Tift^'i+'*! t* i-ute of petitioner passed S.Ed, examinatio 1990-91. Peruaai of Annexufe P-i entry to that effeet has been ef even then, the petitioner id not b| Corr'eipohderice Courses, shows" thut the ji by correspondenee course during the ssssion I, service book of the petitioner, ^hoMis that fected in the service book of the petitioner, 1998 passed bv the DjrecTor, S4 Ad'miniistrative Tribunai vide orderf the sbove factuai ooeWon, the oei, ^ing 9iven ^e benefit of order dated 24-12- hooi Education. BhoBal, whereas, The 5tate dated 19-4-2001 (Annexure P-3) o.-dered for arant of two increraents to the sii^i|ar!y situoted persons. Therefore, in view of itioner ia s!ao entitied for aame benefit. In the circumstanees, the r With tbe direetion oforesdi Parties are entitied for cer|t'ified copy of this drder. 'espondents ore direetedto uranttwo acvsnce rsde inereinehts to the pefitiorjer from the year when he passed the B.Ed. d, the pstition atands diapoaed of. Sdl- L.C.Bhadoo Judge [^^fsA v