^a---— fflGH COVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WR£LPETITIONCSlN<^2^2Qf2007 Shrawan Kumar Saroj, S/o Kanhiyala! Saroj, Aged about 43 years, Occupation Assistant Teachsr Govt. Primaiy Schoo!, Bsndri, Block Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur [C.G.] VERSUS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur [C.G.J 2. The Director, Public Instruction, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur [C.G.j 3. The Joint Director, Public Instruction, Raipur Division, Raipur [C.G.] 4. The Distriet Education OflScer, District - Raipur [C.G.] 5. Block Education Ofiicer, Abhanpur, District - Raipur [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA. Single Bench : Hpn'ble Jysttce ShrtSatishK^Aginhotn. Present: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for tfae State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 8th day ofMay, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit fhat the fact and question of law involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, DUT| and another {2006 (II) iMPJR-CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 2. In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs, The State G<wt of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected mattCTS, decided by this Court on 15- 12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenclature ofthe Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I, has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. TheState Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanother) (Supra). 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in tenns ofthe order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Miinicipal Corporation; Durg and another (Supra), subjwt to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on his own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and farther whether he has been paid tw'o advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihorri Judge Amit