W t / 2. Commissioner, Trtbal Welfare Department Chhattisgarh Government , Raipur (C.G.) § Asst. Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department ewest“? Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) /4 District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) ’5. Block Education Officer, Block k Pushore, Distt. Rajgarh, (co) 0/ ON UIA 226(f' OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE _ N“ TS AND DIRECTIONS WRIT PETITI ’l31‘ @ PETITIONER r/Arvind Kumar Patel S/o Gangaram Gangaram Patel Aged about (){\¢f{\$ L ‘ an” §9 ..... years, Asst. Teacher Primary .. _ ..7 _.."“ ‘. School, Suloni, Block Pusore, w.....w“ Raigarh ( c m I ??\ $0Jg .1 ”(33> Eg‘i” a v” ‘3‘” VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ' /L State of Chhattisgarh 85 Others Through: Secretary Department SchoollEducation/ T.W.D., D.K.S. 6% Versus q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (5) No. 7018 of 2006 Pe'H‘Honer‘ : Ramesh Kurnar Tiwari Responden'l's : S'm‘fé of Chha‘H’isgar‘h & o'Fners W. P. (5) No. 7021 of 2006 Pefifioner i Sm'r. Rejina Toppa Versus aespondem's t Sfu'i’e of Ch haffisgar'h & o'rhers w‘ P. (5) No. 7022 of 2006 Pe'rifioner' : Arvind Kumar Fatal Versus Respondem‘s : STa'i‘e of Chha‘rfisgarh & o'Hner-s w. P. (5) No. 7023 of 2006 Versus W. P. (5) N0. 7024 of 2006 Peii'fioner : Ku. Marry Tigga Responden+s : S‘l'a‘i'e of Chha'H'isgarh & o+hers w. P. (5) No. 7025 of 2006 Pefifioner : Babulal Naik Versus Respondenfs : 5+a‘fe of Chha‘f‘l’isgarh & what‘s W. P. (5) N0. 7026 of 2006 Pefi'rioner Ba! Mukund Chaudhary Versus Responden‘i's: Sfo'fe of Chhaf‘i’isgarh 6: ofhers W. P. (5) No. 7027 of 2006 Pairifioner : Ashok Kumar Pare! Versus Responden'fs : 5mm of Chha++isgurh & oThers And w. P. (5) No. 7028 of 2006 Pe‘fi‘rioner : Aanganlal Chouhan Versus Responden‘fs : 57072 of Chha’H’isgm-h & ofhers Pefifioner : Nifyanand Patel Versus Respondenfs : STa'fe of Chha-Hisgarh & oi'her's @ 5ingle Bench: Hm’bk Mr. Jusfice Sa‘fish K. Agnihofri. Presen‘f: Shrii Sanjay Pa‘fei, Advoca‘re far fhe Pe*i1'ioners‘ 5hr=i Sushil Dubey, Governmem Advocaie for “the S+afe/responden+s. O R D E R (Passed on 151'” day of December, 200$) 1. The petitioners are working as Assismn’r Teachers/Upper Division Teachers in 'H'ne governmen'r schools. In 'i'he caurse of fheir services as Assisian‘i' Teachers/Upper Division Teachers, fhe pe‘i’i'i'ioners have ob‘mined B.Ed./B.T.I. examinafion cer'i'ifica'i'es on +heir own expenses before 13.1999. 2. Wri‘f Petition (5) Nos 7018/2006‘ 7021/2006, 7022/2006, '7023/2006, 7024/200é‘ 7025/2006, 7026/2006, 7027/2006 and 7028/2006 are being disposed of by fhis common order as she facfs and ques‘fion of law invoived in These pe'l'i‘l’ions are common. According 1'0 iearned counsel for The pei'i'l’ioners, fhe pe‘fi‘i’ioners are en'iii'ied To 'iwo advance incremen'fs in View of fhe decision of 'i‘his Cour? in fhe case of Yashwan-f Kumor Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corpora'i'ion, Durq and ano'iher {2006 (II) MPJR—CG 96} This Couri' in The case of Yashwan‘i' Kumar Sharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corpora'i'ion, Burg and ano'l'her (supra), came 1'0 fhe conclusion iha'r +he feachers, who had obfained B. Ed./B.T.I. Examinafion Cerfifica'fe on iheir own expenses, are oovered by ‘i'he circular dafed 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) issued by fhe 5+a+e Government of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Furiher in fhe ma'H'er of Sm‘r. Manorama Shrivas‘iava Vs. Sfai’e of MP. and ofhers { 2000 (1) M.P.L.5‘R‘ 136 } The Madhya Pradesh STaTe AdminisTraTive Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, while considering The circular @ da'red 1.3.1999 wherein, i? is pravided fhaf The Assismn'i' Tzuchars, wha have acquired B. Ed‘ degree a+ Their own cos? be'rween 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shaH be en'rifled To fwo advance incremen'l’s, relied on decisien in The casa of Rakesh Kumar Shrivasfava‘Vs. 5+a+e e'f MP. & of‘ners passed ir‘i 0A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein i'i’ is observed ihai’ 'i'he circular' dci‘ied 1.3.1999 cannoi' be made applicabie reirospeci'iveiy‘ Thus, a feacher‘, may be Assis-mni Teacher, who has ob'i'nined B1 Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is en‘i’ified 1'0 1WD advance incremen'i's. I‘i is psin'ied cu‘i by learned caunsei appearing for ihe pe'ii-rioner‘s ihaf ihe Then Sfa‘re of Madhya PradeSh had filed a Speciai Leave Pe-iii’ion againsi +he orders passed by fhe Tribunal and ihe Hon'ble Supreme Cour“? dismissed Special Leave Pe‘l'ifion No. 1999/2000 filed against 'Fne order of 'i'he Tribunal. Therefore, 1'he direcl'ion ‘io 'i'he effect 'l'ha'i fhe circular da'i’ed 1.3.1999 canno‘i be made applicable re‘i'rospec-rively, passed by +he Tribunal, becomes final and +he same shall be applicable fa all fhe Assisiani' Teachers who have oblained B. Ed./B.T.I. examination cer'iificafe before 1.3.1999. I? is fur-rher subs-ran'iial'ed by a circular da‘ied 17.102003 issued by fhe presen'i 51'a1e of Madhya Pradesh wherein ihe circular clearly sfafes abouf ‘ihe decision of ‘lhe Supreme Cour'l’. Learned counsel for The peTiTioners furTher submiTs ThaT The fac'i's and quesTion of law involved in The presenT case are squarely covered by decision of This CourT in The case of YashwanT Kumar Bharadwaj V51 Municipal CorporaTion, Durg and anoTher (Supra), T'o which learned counsel appearing for The respondenTs fairly concedes and agrees wiTh The avermen'i' made by learned counsei appearing for The peTiTioners. ’@ 4 Accordiwgiy, fhz wri‘f peti‘fions are allowed in farms of 1he m‘der‘ passed in We case of Yashwcmf Kumar Bhumdwaj Vs. Municipal Corpam‘llorl, Burg and arm-flier (Supra), subjec’i' To verifica‘llon of 'l'hz fuel as 1'0 whel’her ‘rhe peli’lloners have acquired B.Ecl./B.T‘I. Examina-Ho‘n Cerliflca-l’e on 'H-lair own expensas as per ‘fhe circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 13.1999 and furiher whe‘i’her ‘i’hey have been paicl iwo advance incremenfs 0r na'i'. No order as +0 cosi’s. A copy of fhis order be placed on record in connecie& ma‘H‘ers‘ l l i Satish Sd/- K. Agmhom . Judge 3ablu iJ _,__,~, 7W,