fi5ei"<*'S "• i-, <5Se^^'L:?~! ^. ^/ -00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT_PETITIQN(S)J*TC). 338 /20(X PETITIONER V- ^-Gurudas Mahant, Son of Shri Sukrit Das Mahant, Aged about f^.-'^? •• 44 years, Assistant Teacher, '>>•-.'• j,.y ..•• Goverrunent F'riraary School <-"^ €^Y ..•••'. .^s"'.-' ^"ap' .<>^"^"...-" ik--' ^e' RESPONDENTS s2!it£5sr i^S^SSyi&?]SS"a';" Lotan, Block Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2- > State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). The District Educadon OfHcer, District Raigarh (C.G.). The Bock Education OfGcer, Block Dhararajaigarh, Disfa-ict Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE /"' 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE XI-HC-78 '3.°; 3:s? 't-iww^, wAww, ^wvy. +11*1^1 Sft*1I<») ••"••••• • • ••"•'•••••••••^ 200 7 Sll^T^R^i* (PIT 311^1 **1 Subbu ^. tj.O ^ 311^1 4s|* (yit^qqff) g^tTWfff^cTan^T 22.1.2007 Mr. Adiwini Shukta Miss Sunita Jain, Pi(net lawyer for the respondents/State Witti the consent wtters are heard finally Coramon order dict^ited in Vi/.P. (s) No. 337 of 2007 in open A copy of -rtiis orde^r be pbced on record in other connected writ petition. '»ii<iFifl41-i*iit((iTifte<<ft'<|ai«i< ^i3ri^T3n^T counsel for the petitioners. of teamed counse! for the Darties. the and disposed of. Sd/- , SatishK.Agnititrtri Judge P.T.O. s- HI6H COURT OT CHHATTtS6ARH AT BILASPW SIN6L6 BENCH : MON'BLE MR. SATISH K. /tSNIHOTRI. J. WRTT PFTmON (5.1 N0. 337 OF 2007 Petitioner versus Respondents Mahetfar Ram Kamalbonshi State of ChhattiS9arh and others /tnd WKTT PETTTEON (5.) N0. 338 OF 2W7 Petitioner Respondants Versus Surudas Mahont State of Othattisgarh and olhers ^"•—i 1-1 -II" Present : Mr. Ashwini Shukla, counsel for the petitioners. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for The Siwte/resfwndmrts. 1. WJ5ER >nd yassed on 22"° t>cy of Jonuary, 2006) Leamed coun^l oppearmg for the petitioners as well as leamed Panel lawyer appearing for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of law involved in the preant writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwaafit Kumar Bhu'adweij is. Mwiieipal Corpoi-eitlM. Duiy ewid <uwt1mt. 2. In sub^quent cases, i.e. , Writ Petition (5.) No.5862 of 2006 ^Hemant Kumar' Vishwakapma vs. State of Chhattisgcaii v.iitl.'- and other^ ond other connected matters, decided by this Court on 12-12-2006, purajont to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in Edu<ation Examination, it was clarified •that the nomencla+ure of the Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been chonged and renamed as biploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordin9ly, the D.Ed. Cert'ificate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (5.) No.5S62 of 2006 (J-kfnonf Kumar Vidiwakarmavs. Staie of Gihailisgarh ando'ther^ (Supra). 1 3. For +he aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court' in the matter of Yadiwant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whe+her the petitioners have acquired D.Ed. Cert-ificate at their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999 cmd further whelher they hoive been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. 4. A copy of "this order be placed on record m o-tiier connected writ petition. ——- Sd/- ; Sarish K. Agmtlutri Judge 1 Z006CII)»PJR-C696 Subbu