.Bt-' '^^F' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUi Writ Petifion (S5 No. 3932 of 2007 PETI Madhusudan Shadangi, S/o. Shri Markande Shadarsgs, assd about Teacher Block - igarh, (CG). RESPONDENTS Versus 1) 2) 3) 36 years, Prlmary Schooi Pusour, District - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C-G. The District Education Officer, Raigarh, Disfrict Raigarh, (CG$. The Biock Education OfRcer. Biock Pussour, Dfetrict - Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) SB: Hon'bie Wir. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsei for the petitloner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on 11th July, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as weli as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law involved in the present writ petitlon are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. MunicioaE Corooration. Dura and another { 2006 (!i) MPJR -CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 3-4-2006. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 3. in subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Peiition (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 15-12-20CB, 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 Vi/as ciarified that the nomenciaturs of the Basic Trainlng institute i.e., B.T.i., has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Education, i.®., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are atso covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). Accordingiy, the writ petition is afiowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another (supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. Exami'nation 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 Rai