HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3927 pfj007 1) 2) 3) Ghanshyam Gupta, S/o. Shri Girdhari Gupta, Aged about - 45 years, Assistant Teacher Primary Schoo! Slha - Umaria, Biock - Pusour, District- Raigarh, (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sscretary, Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. The Distrid Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (CG). The Block Education Officer, Block Pussour, District - Raigarh (Writ Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justica Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counse! for ths pstitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the StaSe. (Passed on 11th Juiy, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as wei! as Tor the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of iaw involved in the oresent writ petitlon are the same io that of In Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipa! Corporation, Durg and another { 2006 (II) MPJR -CG §S),which has been disposed of vide order dated 3-4-2006. Learned counsei appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. Raju *2 — In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S) No. 4139 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected matiers. decided bv this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, Issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopa! and the prospectus of Dipioma in Education Examination, it was ciarified that the nomenciature of the Basic Training institute i.e., B.T.I., has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Eciucatlon, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certificate hoiders are aiso covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another (supra'). Accordingiy, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwanf Kumar Bharadwa] Vs. IWunfeipai Corporation, Durg anci another (supra), subject to verlfication of the Tact as to whether the petitioner has acquired D.td, Examination Certificate on his own expenses as per t'ns cireulars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether he has been paid fevo advance increments or not. No orderastocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 'i^