HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BiLASPUR Wrjt Petition (Sl Np,3922 of 2007 m Versus 1) 2) 3) Umesh Pradhan, S/o. Shri Chhattar Singh Pradhan, aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher Primary School Keshia, Biock - Pusour, District Raigarh (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, through the School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. The District Education Officer, Rajgarh, District Raigarh, (CG). The Biock Education Officer, Block Pusour, Dlstrict - Raigarh (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri 'esent: Shri Sanjay Patei, counss! for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ("'t! LU! 1. (Passed on 11th Juiy, 2007) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner as weli as for the State/respondents jointiy submit that the fact and questlon of law involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs;^ Munfcjpa! Corporation, Durg and another { 2006 (li} MPJR -CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 3-4-2006. Learned counse! appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 2-- 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, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was ciarified that the nomenclature of the Bassc Training institute i.e., B.T.!., has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certfficaie hoiders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is aiiowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwai Vs. MunJciDai Corporation, Durg and another (supra), subject to verification of ihe fact as to whether the petiiioner has acquired D.Ed. 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 frfl/o advance increments or not. No orderastocosts. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Raju