u L^-«-_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BELASPUR Writ Petition (S5 No.3S3N of 2007 (^ PETITiONER Versus 1) 3) Ekambar Nath Patel, S/o. Shri Gangadhar Pate!, Aged about 48 years, Assistanf Teacher Govt. Primary School Bonda, Block - Pussoye, District- Raigarh, (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretar/, Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dlstrict - Raipur, CG. The District Education Officer, Ralgarh, Dfetrict Raigarh, (CG). The Biock Education Officer, Block Pussour, District - Raigarh (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counse! Tor the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed on 11th Juiy, 2007) 1. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner as well as for the State/respondents jointiy submit that the fact and qusstion of law involved in t'ne oresent writ Detition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Stflunicipai Corporation, Durg and another { 200S (i!) MPJR -CG'96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 3-4-2006. Learned counsel appeanng for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. ^ "\ ^ 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 matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, sssued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopa! and the prospectus of Dipioma in Education Examlnation, it was clarified that t'ne nomenclature of the Basic Training Snstitute i.e., B.T.I., has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are aiso covered by the declsion in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Oovt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). 3. Accordingiy, the writ petition is aliowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Wiunicipal Corporation, Durg and another (supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acqulred D.td. Examination Certificate on his own expenses as per the circuiars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge