PETITIONER ——_.-s-i c -F- <00: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURICGl WRIT PETITION (S) N0. (C Sc'2-/2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ^ Bal Mukund Patel (B.T.C./B.T.I.), aged about 42 years, son of Shri Ramchand Patel, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Gopalpur, Vikas Khand Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary,. Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan SinghBhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh (CG) Block Education Officer, Block Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (CG) RESPONDENTS ^1. .."^ ..-^rilr- ^:;%: -J-~"" . 2. ^p--',^-' «,!).>•• -t;C-*> .,'"'''' ^' XI-HC-78 aiI^Tqn'f^lw clW3II^Tstili» tfWcTTsh*11ch 3^ •<<l<llcl<l, si-rflu'is, Rjdiyy f^W7.^-?..€-f.^.^200(3 an^T'raa? (^atg^aT) g^nwflf^rsn^r 11,12.2006 Shri A.N. Bhakta, couns 'bl-ilfcKfl.) tilx<-ft'fffel^<l»lt<il< ^3(f^:T3:n^r s\ for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja G.A. foMhe respondents/State. The petitioner is workin^ as Assistant Teacher in Government School. In the course of h b service as Assistant Teacher. the petitioner has obtained B.T.I./P.T.C. certfflcate at his own expenses before 1.3.1999. According to tearned entitled to two advance incremtents in the case of Yashwant i^ounsel for the petitioner, petitioner is in view of the decision of this Court Kumar Bharadwaj Vs, MuniciDal corporation, Dura and anothbr This Court in the case of Corporation, Durg and anoth^i the teachers, who had obtain^( on their own expenses, are issued by the State Govemmefit Further in the m.atter State of M.P. and others r< Madhya Pradesh Administr^ lothbr reoorted in 2006 (2) MPJR - CG 96. Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal (supra), came to the conclusion that i^d B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate by the cireular dated 24.12.1998 of Madhya Pradesh. cdvered bf Smt. IVIanorama Shrivastava Vs. sported in 2000 (1) MPLSR 136, the Itive Tribunal, Gwalior Bench while EX_ _ XI-HC-78 tfitforaiwqi 3^ "i<wici'i<, aTn.yis, Riowy »»»*'<• *'^ ~*-^ »***»»*t*»t^ 200<? 3Ti^?r craqr (ipfgg^sr) 3n^rq5TR-ii+ i(W3TI^Tst)l[tti WciTwnl^crsn^T °M<lfc1<l1-< TITlcTf if fSsf! (\vfW, ^iSrf^ITSn^T 1 $73 considering the cireular dated 1 .f Assistant Teachers who have ac]quired between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.' increments, relied on the deci^ Shrivastava Vs. State of Madl Original Application No. 1632/1^99 is observed that the circularl 3.1999 wherein it is provided that the B.Ed. degree at their own cost shall be entitled to two advance lion in the case of Rakesh Kumar lya Pradesh and others passed in decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it applicable retrospectively. Thus,| who has obtained B.Ed. degre| advanced increments. dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made a teacher may be Assistant Teacher, e before 1.3.1999 is entitled to two It is pointed out by the| petitioner that the then State of| Leave Petition against the ord^rs Hon'bte Supreme Court dismis^ed 1999/2000 filed against the o\ direction to the effect that the cirti applicable retrospectively, pass^d the same shail be applicable to obtained B.Ed./BTI certificateb learned counset appearing for the Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special passed by the Tribunal and the the Special Leave Petition No. 'der of the tribunal. Therefore, the cular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made by the Tribunal, becomes final and all the Assistant Teachers, who have before 1.3.1999. It is further XI-HC-78 (£ *ll*lMl s»i*ll<sh 3^'<ii<<in<<,®tfi*f'is,Ri<nwy .1^-.(-.LV..(.?.9. ^ 200^ an^Tyact) (y<^<st<i<c) sn^TgirRaRT (raT3(I^Tst"< ?TBW dfer sn^T tlKircl'ifl'f >ll'4<llTfffec^<Rl+<;K ^ari^Tsn^r substantiated by acircular da^ed State of Madhya Pradesh wher^in decision ofthe Hon'ble Suprem) 17.10.2003 issued by the present pin the circuiar clearty states about the 3 Court. Learned counsel for the and question of law involved petitioner further submits that the facts in the present case of petitioner are squarely covered by the decisio|n of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) to wl|iich learned counse! appearing for the respondent/State fairly conce<|es and agrees with the averments made by learned counsel appe^ring for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ of this Court in the matter of verification of the fact as to B.T.I./B.T.C. certificate at his 01 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and | advance increments or not. No petjtion is allowed in terms of the decision 'Dfashwant Kuamr Bharadwaj subject to Iwhether the petitioner has acquired ^n expenses as per the circuiar dated further whether he has been paid two t>rder as to costs. i._.„— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ^