SIN11! F tfSKtsa.f. 1 ii IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P<gNo..........ls'.^.63..../2006 PETITIONER: ,^& •^^^> ^p ^" .\4^ ^y' ^^•"^ i^ Kshamanidhi Patel S/o Shri Gajadhar Patel, Aged 41 year's Working as L.D.T. (Tribal Department) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kotba, R/o Lailunga, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ^»" VERSUS f" ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Manta-alaya D.K.S. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Asst. Coniraissioner, Tribal Welfare Deparment District Jashpur (C.G.) HIGILCOUOT OF CHHATnSOARH AT BIU^PUR W. P. (sl No. 6863 of2006 Petitioner Respondents Kshamanjdhi Patel Versus State ofChhattfa^rh & aaofher Stn^e Bendi: HonTate Mr. Justfce SatteliK. Ag^ictel. Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for fhc Pctition.er. Shri V. V. S. Moorfhy, Depuly Advocate General wifh. Smt Anju Ahuja, Deputy GovL Advocate fbr the State/iespondents. O R DE R (Passed on fhis 12th day of necemhcr, 2006) The petitioner is workii^ as Assistant Teacher (L.D.T.) m the govemmcnt schooL In fhe course of his seivice as Assistaat Teacher, the petitioner has obtamed D.Ed. certiffcates on his cwn expenses before 1.3.1999. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits fhat thc 'Basfc TEaming Institute' (B.T.I.) certificate has bcen reiiamed by ffae oider of fhe State Govemment as 'Diploma in Education' (D.Ed.) certificate. The petitkiner, who has obtained D.Ed. certificate prior to 1.3.1999 is entiffled to the saine relief as is graated to fhe candidates who had obtained B.T.I./B.Ed. certificates on fh.dr own expenses as per the circulais dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999. Learaed Dcputy Advocate General, appearing for fhe respondents/State, produced a copy of the memo dated 12.12.2006 issiied by flie Director, Public Instrucdoxis, Cbhattisgarh, noti.ee dated 28.1.1995 issued. by the Secxctary, Board of Secondaiy Education, Bhopal, and the prospectus of Diploaaa in Education ExaininatiDn and subinits that fhe nomenclature of fhe Basic Traiau^ Institute Le. B.T.I. has been reiiamed as Diptoma iu Education Le. D.Ed. Leamed Deputy Advocate General also produced a copy of the cnicular dated 24.12.1998, issiied by fhe School Education Departaient, Govenunent of Madhya Pcadesb, Bhopal, aUowing two increments to fhe teacheiswho have ctotasaBi B.Ed., M.Ed.,B.T.I. cxamuiation 6. certificates. The documeuts are taken on record ia W. P. No. 5862/2006. According to teamed couiisel for fhe petitioner, fhe petitioner is entitled to two advaace increinents in view of fhe decisioa of fhis Court in ffae case of Ysshwant KiunarJBharadwai Vs. Miuucioal Corporation, Dui^ aad anodier {2006 (U) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kunaar Bharadwsg Vs. Mmircipal Corporation, Durg and anofher (Supr^, caine to the conctusion fhat the teachers, who had obtamed B. Ed. /B.T.I. Certificate on tfaeir own expenses, are covered by the citcular dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) issued by (he State Govenunent of Madhya Pradesh. Furfher in tfae matter of Smt MannrnTnn Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and ofhera { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradcsh State Admmisttative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, whffle considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 whereia, it is provided fhat fhe Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 £md 7.5.1973 shaU be entitkd to two advan.cc iacrements, relied on decismn in the case of Rabesh Kiunar Sbrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & ofhers passed in O.A.NO. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed fhat the circular dated l.3.1999 caanot be inade appBcable retrospectwety. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistaat Teacher, who has obtaiaed B.Ed. degree before l.3.1999 is entifted to two advaace increments. It is pomted out by teamed counsel appearing for the petittoner tihat tfae fhen State of Madliya Pradesh had ffled a Special Leave Petitk>n against fhe orders passed by fhe Tribimal and the Hon'bte Suprenie Court disuiissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2WO filed against fhe order of fhe TribunaL Therefore, the direction to the efiect fhat the ciroular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be inade appUcable retrospectivefy, passed by the Tribunal, becoxnes fmal aad fhe same shall be applicable to aU fhe ^tesistant Tcacheis wbo have obtaiaed B.Ed./ B.T.I. certificate before l.3.1999. It fa further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by tfas preseat State of Madhya Pradesh wherem fhe circular ctearty states about fhe decision offhe Supreme CourL .-,__„ !i"'~i ila Thakur 7. Leanied counsel for fhe petitfoner further subinits fhat tliic &cts aad question of law iavolved in ttie preaent case are squarely covered by deciswn of fhis Court in fhc case of Yashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Dui^ and Emother (Supis^, to which leamed counsel appcariag for the xespoDdents fajxty coacedes and agrees with the avenaent made by leamed coimsel appearmg for fhe petitioner. 8. Ac<x>rduigty, iu fhe event D.Ed. certificate holders are eqiial to B.T.I./B.Ed. certificate holders, the petttioiier is entttted to fhe samfi relief in terms of fhe orders passed in fhe caae of Yashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Muuicipal Corpotation, Dui% and another (Supia), subject to verification of the iact as to whether the petitiDiier has acquired D.Ed. Certificate on his own expe&scs as per fhe cireulars dated 24.12.1998 & 1.3.1999 etod further whefher he has been paid two advaiice increm.eats or not No order as to costs. Sd/- Judge