Sl&iNt ? fiPK?*! c' 's IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W,P,(S) No. 'y3>-^ / 2006 PETITIONER :y -»--^—u^^^^ ^o^ ^!^.^> ^.°-"" RESPONDENTS Pramod Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Shri Bodhan Prasad Tiwari, aged about 35 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls' Primary Schoot - Harda, Block - Akaltara, Distt. - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS , 1. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Through- The Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3'. Block Education Officer, ^ Block - Akaltara Distt. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDtA—FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT. WRITS, DIRECTIQN ETC TO 00 JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISftWH AT MLASPUR SIN6LE BB4CH ; HONW.E MR. SATISHK. A6NIHOTRI. J. WRTT PErmONfS.) N0. 7377 OF 2006 Petitianer ; Tukeshww Prosad Sher versus Respondents : Stote of ChhcrH'isgorh and others WWT pErrrroN (s.) NO. 7379 OF 2005 Petitioner Promod Kumar Tiwari versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgorh and o'ttiers WRTT PCTmON (S.) N0. 7379 OF 2006 Petitioner Sohdev Ram Dhruw veraus Respondents : State ofChhattisgorh ond o-rtiers WRTT I'EmiON (S) N0. 7383 OF 2006 ^-- Petitioner Smt. Rutboro versus Respondents Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh and others And WKrr pennoN (s.) N0.7391 OF aoos Ankalu Ram Sonpipare versus Resoonclents State of Chhottisgarh and o'thers r~ ./, Present : Mr. Anil Singh Rqjput, i^dvocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sumesh Bty<y, fiwemment Advoctite for the State/respondents. OR&ER (Paised on 5* bcy of January, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well os for the State/pespondents jointly submit ttiat -the facts ond question of lcn» involved in the present botch of iwit petitions ore squarety covered by the decision of this Court in the cose of yaslmwnt Kumar Bhmwfwefj vs. Muniepal Corpawtwn. Oury and anothei^ . s. 2. In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (5.) No.4130 of 2005 (Styesh Kwnar Venna vs. The Siate Savt. af Chhattlsyrh and anotfiei) and other cmnected martters. decided by this Court on 15-12- 2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by •the Secretary, Board of Secondory Bducation, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diplomo in ^ Educotion Examination, it was clarified that the nomencloture of the Basic TrainingIiKtitute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renomed as &iplomo in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate holders ore also covered by ttie decision in Writ Petition (5.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kimar Vema vs. The State Sovf. of Miattlsgarh and enothei) (Supra). 3. For the aforementioned reasons, the wit petitions are dfsposed of in terms of the decision of this Coirt in the mutter of yeehivant Kumcr V. flfronKAny'(Supra), aubject to verificotion of the fact as to whether the petitioners hove ocquired B.Ed./B.T.I./O.Gd. Certificates crf their o—n expenses os per tfie cir-culars doted 24-12-1998 ond 1-3-1999 <md further whether they have been paid two odvance inct^ffnents or not. No order as tocosts. 4. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Jydge 1 2006 (0) MPJR-C6 96 Subht ^.