IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 9’2/ WRIT PETITION (S) No. \ [2011 Vijay Kumar Soni S/o Shri Nanak Ram Soni aged about 40 Years, Upper Division Teacher, presently working in govt. Middle School Juna Shahar Ratanpur, Block- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS PETITIONER 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) / 2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer Block‘ Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / @ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 172 of2011 : Vijay Kumar Soni. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: ‘Shri Ajay Batik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 13 day of January, 201 l) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on account ofpassing B.T.I. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. 2. Shri Barilg leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present ease is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofMf. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another) and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. ofChhattisgarh and another? . 1 2009 (II) MPIR (SC) 59 2 2005 (II) MPJR CG 95 3 WP (S) No.413o or 2005 3M . Shri Barik further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions as aforestated Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to' decide his case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification ofthe fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. celtiiicate on his own expenses before entering into service. . Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light ofthe decision of Supreme Court inAsha Saxena (supra) and of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks hom the date of receipt of the representation. . In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/4 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit