C^ (^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREATBILASPUR CHHATT1SGARH WRIT PETITION (S) N0.: \%>^ /2010 PETITIONER w JO .^•f;**/ 1 ^^j^'" ^^^•'•'"" RESPONDENTS: Smt. Deepti Mishra W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Aged about 49 years, Occupation - Lecturer, Pancham Diwan, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhatapara, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS:. 1.'" State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Raipur D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, School Education, D.K.S.Bhawan,Raipur(C.G.) 3.' The District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District-Raipur(C.G.) 4. ThePrincipal, Pancham Diwan, Govemment Giris Higher Secondary School, Bhatapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION (S), OR ORDER (S HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITION(S) No. 1293 of 2010 : Smt. Deepti Mishra. VERSUS : Slate of ChhatU^arh & Othere. ^ Writ Petiton Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India SB: Hen'bte Shri Satish K. Annihotri. J. Present Shri V.Vijay AdvocaiB for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/fespondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon29h dayof March,2010) With the consent of leamed counsel for ttie parties, ttie matter is hearel finally. •). By this petition, the petitioner seete a directlon to ifte respondents to pay twa advance increments on passing of B.Ed. eiaminatton, on her own expenses, before entering into service. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tfiat the issue involved in ths present case js no longer res integraas Ihe same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Stste ofM.P. 8 Ors. as weii as by ttiis Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bfiaradwaj v. Municipal Corpoiation, Durg & anotfiei' and Gopesfi Kumar Varma v. The State (Sort. cf 3. Shri Vijay further submits that the Insfant petition is squarefy covered by the decision as afbrestated. Thus, the peiitioner may be permfttBd to make a represeniaBon to the respondent authorffles to deu'a'e her case for grant of two increments in the light of afbrestated decision, subject to verifteation of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certiflcate on her ovm expenses before entering into service. 4. Leamed aiunsel appearing for the State/respondents submlts that in the event, the petifioner maKes a represeniabon, ttie same will &e considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxana (supia) as weli as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhaiadwajand Gopesfi Kumar Verma (supta), within a pertod of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representafen. 5. in view of foregoing, according to the learned counset appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingiy, the writ petition is dispcsed of. Sdl- ^y nibotrl '• 2009 (II!) MPJR (SC) 59 ~-2006(II)MPJR-CG96 i7/P(S)No.4I30of2005.