^ 'g-isrzsy IN_THE HON'BLE HI6H C©yftTOFCHHAm:S6ARH AT BJLASPUR '.P.(S)NO. zf^f'^- / 2011 1. Sukhilal Kanwar, Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Shri Chandu Ram Kanwar, Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Mandragorhi, Block - ^ .^ A\<y^ ^iK ^/>//^' (^•''..••T?.--''' ..-•"'. ^.••"'Ji-'' X .•••.« ^y//~° <^-' Ay 2. Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa- V.6.: years, S/o Shri Horilal, Upper Division Teacher, 6ovt. Middle School, , Block - Sokti, Janjgir Champa-(C.6) years, S/o Late Shri Sinkar, Upper Division Teacher, 6ovt. Versus Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.G. 1. o. 2. Dijstrict Education Officer, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.6.) 3. Joint birector, Accountand Treasury, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.6.) 4. Block Education Officer, Block - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.6.) 5. Block Education Officer, Block - Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa- (C.6.) WRITPETETTON UN&ER^RIirLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OFINDIA fc^ •''- <^i^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. .J. W.P.(S»No.4617/2011 Petitioners versus Respondents SiikhUal Kanwar & Ors. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Petition uZA 226 of_the Constitution of India Appearaace: Shri A.S. Rajput, counsel for fhe petitioners. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 12.8.2011) 1. By this petition, ttie petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance tncrements on passing B.T.I. examination, on their own expenses, before enterinj into service. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for titie petitioners submits fhat fhe issue involved m fhe present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors,J[ as weU as by fhis Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwctj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothe^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of CHhaltisgarh and another3. > 2009 (UI) MPJR (SC) 59 ,2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 \WP (S) No.4130 of 2005 J» -ssiis®*. ^:SSK 3. Leamed counsel further submlts fhat the instant petition is squarely covered tiy fhe decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may be pennitted to make representatlon to decide thetr cases in fhe light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether fhe petitioners have acquired B.T.I. certtficate on fheir own expenses before entering into servlce. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that now the State Govt. has also issued an order on 5th Januaiy, 2011 (Annexnre P-4). 4. Leamed counsel appearir^ for the State submits fhat in the event, the petitioners make representation, (he same wiU be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in fhe Ught of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), as weU as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Copesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of 3 monfhs frora fhe date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of foregotng, according to fhe leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioners, nofhing survives in this petition for adjudication. Prsaieeo. 6. Accordingly, tfae writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- i Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge