t^^^t^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W. P.(S). N0. y&3si /2006 PETITIONER . f ...-••"oY^ ^f^y^ ...^l^"'" ..•••"..-•••rf''A>" \®^•'[^ '!>. c'- RESPONDENT f^ Smt. Sunita Pal W/oShriSunilPal Ageabout42years, Village- Urla, Post-Abhanpur Tahsil-Abhanpur Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) 2. District Education Officer Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2"26/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ 15 HI6H COURT OFCHHATTES6ARH AT MLASPUR W. P. faNo. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : Ateghanarth Vadw Vwsus Rcspondents : State 6ovt. of Chhuttisgnrh A anolher W. P.fSlNo. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner : Goydhar Prasnd Sohu Versus Respondents ; StateStwt.ofGMwittisgarhAano'ther W. P.fSlNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitiomsr : RBUwuhanknr Supta Versus Reapondents : Slate 6<wt. of Chhattisgarh A ano'ther W. P. (S) No. 5638 of 2006 Petitionw : Tcekum Lal Sinha Versus Re^pondents : StuteSwt.ofChhuttiagarhAano'lhcr W.P.ffflNo. 5639 of 2006 Pctitioner : Smt. SunitaPorf Versus teapondcnts : State&wt.ofChhatf'isgarhAanother W. P.fSlNo. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner : Mohboob Khan Qurowhi Veraus Respondents : State6ovt.ofCWNrMugarhAano1her W.P.ffflNo. 5641 of 2006 Ptetitioner : Smt. Jageawri Bhagel Veraus Respondents : StBte6ovt.ofChhuttiagarhA<n<rrtw W.P.f5lNo.S642of2006 Petitioner : Tutendra Kuniar Tniuri Versus teapondents : Statc 6ovt. of ChhatHagarh A ano'Hwsr W.P.(S)Ni>.B643of2006 Retitkwier : Ranwvtar yadawo Weraus Re^pondents : Sta(»6ovt.ofChha*t»garhdawther r7^7 ••"t Petitioner Reapondents Retitwner Respondcnts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondurts Retitwner RcsDondents Petitwner Rcapondents Petitioner Re^pondents Petitioner Reapondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. fSi No. B644 irf aX)6 : AnujftamSnhu Veraus : StateSovt.ofChhaMisgarhAanolher W.P.fSlNo.5646<»faX)6 ; RaycnAn Kunwr 6up*n Vcrsus : Slatefiovt.ofCWiattJsgorhdanolhcr W. P.rSiNo. 5647 of 2006 ; Shaunad Twiinri Versus : StateSovt.ofChhattisgnrhAano'thcr W. P.fSlNo. 8648 of 2006 : MahanclruPrBBndShtikla Versus : Sfuteewt.ofChhatMsgnrhAtnolfacr W.P.rS)No.S673of2006 : fiunbheoahan Sohu Versus ; Sttrte6<wt.of ChhattiagarhAuwthcr W.P.faNo.5674ofa)06 : Smt. Jaya Tiwuri Versus ; Statefiorl'.ofChhcMiyarhAflno-ther W. P.fSiNo. 5675 ef 2006 : Tuta Ram Chandndwr Versus State 6ovt. of Chhattia9arh Aano'ther W. P./SiNo. 5676 of 2006 : Ramesh Kumar Verna Veraus : StateSovt.ofChhattiagorhdano'ther And W.P.f5)No.5677ofa)06 Vcrais Dhunsny Pattel State 6o¥t.of Chhtrttiagarh A ano'ther 1 Singh Bmch: Hon'ble Mr. Juatice Satiak K. Agnihfftri. 5hri Ajay Shrivastaniu, Advocatc for Ihe Petitionu's. Snt. Atju ^UJJB, t)y. 6ovt. Adwcoite for •rtie reapondents/Stat*. ^ OR&ER (26tl'0ctober,2006) 1. Lttu'ned counsel appearing for -the petH'ioners aubmHs thut' Nihile uwrking as Assistant TeachursA^pper Owision Teachers/Lecturers, 'fhe petitioners hanc yne on Irainirg to improve -their quaUfications on 'their own cxpcnaes and acquired B. EdYB.TJ &«innna*ionCertificate. The present writ petitions, bwiy WfJ^ Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006, 5638/2006. 8639/2006. 5640/2006, 5641/2006. 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006, 5647/2006. 5648/2006. 5673/2006,5674/2006. 5675/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 inwlve aimilar fncts ond common question of kn». "n»is,Ihese petitiona cre bun9 disposed of by •this conunon order. According to leamed counaal for •the |wtrtionws, •the petitionera are entitled t»•hiw atlvinnce incnsments in viet»of 1he dedsion of •this Court- in •the CBMB of YaahNBnt Ifiuniar Bharadwuy Vs. Municipd Corporartion. Durg and anolher {2006 CII) MPJR-C& 96}. This Cburt in Ihe case of y<ah*»ant Kumar BharndtNaj Vs. Municipol Corpuration, Ourg and anothu' 4 ^^ (5upra). came to 1he conclusion •rtwt •the tBadwu's, who had obtained B.Ed./B.TJ. Examhwtion CBmficute on his 0*1*1 expenses. are cowred by Ihe circular dBrted 24.1258 isaued by Ifie Slate fiwwmment of Madhya Pmdeah. 4. Lenmed counsel for •the petitwnera furthcr aibnrits Ihat Ihe facts cnd question <rf lar inwlved in •th«present oaass ore squardy cavered by deciswn of •this Court h Ihe cnae of Yaahwant Kumur Bharadtiaj Vs. Ateinjdpal Corporution, Durg and ano-ther (Supra), to which leamed courl appwrirg for •the responderrta fairly concedes and agnea t»rththe owermcnt nnde by leamed counsel oppearing for Kie petifoners. 5. Accordingly, -the writ petrtions are allowed in terms of -Ihe ordw passed in •the case of yaahwant Kunnr BharadNnj Vs. Municipal Corponrtion, Durg and anolher (5upra), aAJtct *B verification of the fact as to ihe'ther Itw petitioiNM hawe acquired B. EdYB.TJ. 6<ominuti«i Cn^ifkate on Iheir ofn expenaes or not. No orderus to costs. 6. A copy of -this ordcr be pland on record of olher connertBd »iritpetjtwns. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge aUu