HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WKIT PETITIONfS^ No. 84of2W)8 : 1) Pravinchand Gupta S/o Vishikeshan Gupta, Aged about 33 years, Assistaiit Teadier, Primaay School Mahaloi, glock Pusour, Disfi-wt Raigarh (C.G.) 2) Maiigal Prasad Patel S/o Chaitan Prasad Patel, Aged about 42 yeare, Assistant Teaehar,.Primar^' School Jampali, Block Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) . . • ' • :: 3) Motilal Gupta S/o Bhum Gupta, Aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary Schopl Lohakhan, Block Pusour, District Raigarh (G.G.) 4) Pumaiiand Devta S/o Goutam Devta, Aged about 42 yeara, Assistant Teacher, Pruiiafy School Garh Umariya, Block Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) , 5) Vasudeo Kaser S/o Biharilal Kaser, aGed about38 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School Gudu, Block Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) \7ERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Forest Dqaartment, D;K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Disteict - Raipur (C.0.) 2. The District Education Qfficer, Raigarh, District Raigarii(C.G.) 3. Block Education QfEeer, Biock Pusour, District Raiearii CC.G.V WRFT PETmQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITn-ON OF WD1A SB: Hori'We Shri SatisU K. Asnihotri.J. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate forthe petitioners. Miss Sunita Jain, Eanel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 08th day of January, 2008) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law involved in the present writ petition are the same to fliat of in Yashwant Kumar BharadwaJ Vs. Mumdpal Corporation, Durj and another {2006 (H) MPJR-CG $6), which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Present: 1.^ 1 ffllfl St ^ .- In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of2005 (Gcpesh KmnarVerma -vs. The State.Govt. of Chhattisgwh and another) aad other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant tothememodated 28-1-1995, issuedbythe Secretary, Board of Seeondary Education, Bhopal aad the prospectys ofDipIoma in Education Examination, it was clarified fhat the nomenclatare of the Basic Tra.imng Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as rtploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Aceordinely, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also coveredbv the decision in Writ Petition(S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Venna -vs. TheState Gwt. ofChhattisgwh andanother) (Supra). Accordingly, tfae writ petition is allowed interms ofthe orderpassed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dui^ and another(Supra), subjectto verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate Qntheirownexpensesasperthecircularsdated 24,12.1998 and 01.03.1999 andfartfaer whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. •Sd/- _ ,„; -skirut" liitj j'^!;1fl!?): •jnsiii^itgf^-ra&sSij