I g m 7 a .waae m; me saw g 1gb ag m: @yys/z-mi ‘Qmé Lam: sum: Jung gi i ‘b; mm: aha; mum. swam a Mums m; we g y : 9; 1Q: Jaggm mag; um m; .LLu: nu.» m mam ‘ ‘j’y 1g: T—rmapclsn wane 3 ‘ tgm gym Q s36: lime mm wm£ 6: u Elgagfa .gusnnbus 1mg smmgj gn‘ ¥ gmglhm iigmrwe 1mg. $1943 z $311: wwi‘ E 7 _ J _ 1mm; 1m; mam \' K > AmJ-wftfz ~ " mm hang éuw muggy] ' ‘ nmg4mu1gm my Lu: 7 1 ‘ ‘ him: mwi~ \_ QL‘JLQL ‘ { mmm Mag mug: wg ' g g“ > ¢ra/5(Qj (WA 4 g m w m m: I f V H QJEI: , _ C)? WE” PETmON (3:) M.” ¢f 29¢? Peh'ticners : Goku! &m Sahu and another versu§ Respondent : sate Govt. of Chhawsgam and wars WRIT PETITWN (SJ N0=§§2 OF 20°! Petitbner : smt M.B. Banjaro versus M : sate Govemment of Chhattisgarh and . others WRIT PETITION Is.) NO.353 OF 2007 Petitioner : Yad Ram Banjare vereus BM : sate Govemmont of Ghhettiegarh and others WRIT PETIEON (5,} mgaz OF 3006 Emgn . . e[ : Nagendra Kumar Achuye Vaisu§ Respondent : Shte of mdhya Pradeeh (now Chhamsgarh) and omers WRIT PETITION (5.) N048” OF 3006 Péiitioner I : Ishwar Lal Kunjam Versus - Respongen§ : Shte of Chhamsgarh and omen £Q! PETITION (5.! NO,5075 OF m- Petitioner : Heeraman Singh Kashya versus Bumdm : Sm. of Chhauisgarh and chars Present : MLDeepak Jain,Mr.Vlvek Venna.Mts. Hamid: siddique,'Mr.‘ Mahfoo] Alum. Mr. Rakesh Anthony. Mr. Somkant Verma and Mr. Maneash $harma. counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sushu Dub'ey, Govemmammm, Mr. Sam Gupta. Deputy Govemment Advocate and Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyar for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 22"“ Day of January, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit tnat the facts and question of law involved In the present batch of writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court In tho case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwal vs. Municipal Corporation, Darn and .notw. . , *v: _~—-— i m / O In subsequent cases lo Wnt Pewon (3) No.4130 of 2005 (Goposh Kumr Venn: vs The Stats Govt of Chhnwsgarh 1nd mama and other connected mitten deddad by this Court on 2.§ 15-12-2006. pursuant to the memo dated 28-1 Sesmhfy. of Diploma in Edudah'on Examination. it was chrified mat the nomenclature of me Basic Training lnsdlute. i.e., B.T.l. has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, Aocordingly, decision in writ Petition (5.) No.4130 or 2005 (comb Kum Venn. vs; The state Gav‘t. orChheaiegarh and enema) (supra). 49$, Mad by m Board of Secondry Education. Bhopal and the prospectus i.e.. D.Ed. the D.Ed. Certinoate holders are also covered by Ihe 3. For the aforemendoned reasons. the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the mater of Yeshwent Kurner Bheredivqi (Supra) subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petldoners have acquired B.Ed£.T.l./D.Ed. Certiticates at their own expenses as per he circulars dated 24-12- 1998 and 16-1999 and further whether they have been‘peid two advance increments or not. No order as to cos 4; Acopyofthlsorderbeplacedonthereoordoftl'le connected writ peetione / , sd‘ I —v—n saHShK‘ E mh0m f“. in. Judge 2006 (ll) MPJR—CG 96 t.