,^^y. 0^i^3.^ '•sss^v .^i^-^^ ~^ys^~' Q^v' ^v" •"• .^fv" .A-.."""" © ^ c^i^ z IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR WRIT PETETION [S] N0. /2006 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Malta Rangari wife of Shri / Radheshyam Rangari, aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Shukwapara, Block- Bodla, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through -^ The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur [C.G.J. 2] District Education Officer,/- Kabirdham [C.6.J 3] Block Education Officer, Kawardha,^ District Kabirdham [C.G.] t^ WRIT PETrriON UN&ER ARTICLE 226/^^ OF THE <fCONSTETUTEON OF IN&IA JFOR ^SSUANCE OF SUFTABLE fe? *^" e,. o; \i e' y WRIT. WRITS. DIRECTTON ETC TO DO JUSTECE IN THE \ ^? ,\^ ^ MATTER. HE6H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT m-ASPUR W. P. CS] No. 6720 of 2006 '^ Petitioner Smt. AAaSta Rangari Versus State of ChhattiS9arh &. 0'ttiers Single Sench". Hon'bie Mr. Justiee Salish K. Agnihotri. -r, Deepak Jgin, Advocate for 1+ie Petitioner. s. Sunita Jain, Pane! lawyer for the State/respondents. Oft^_E_R (possed on this 231'd doy of February, 2007) 1. ' The petitioner is wor-king as Assis-tant Teacher in Primary School, Shukwapar-a, Biock-BodSa, &istrict Knbir-dhain. In ihe. course of his service as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner- has obtained D.Ed. Examination Certificate h-i the year 1999, on his own axpenses. 2. Lenmed counsel appearing for the petitioner- submits 1+iat the question involved, her-ein asto whe+her the teadier, who obtained D.Ed. Exomnination Cer-tificats on his own expenses, is entitied to two advance increments. 3. According to lear-ned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to two advance incrernents in view of the decision of -tiiis Court in the case of Vashwant Kwnar" Bharadw<y Vs. Munici o.^onit-;on. &urg and another (2006 Ql) MPJR-C6 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipai Corporotion, ^ &urg and another (Supro), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtainec! B. Ed. /B.T.Z. Examination Cer-tificate on their own expenses, ar-e covered by the circular dated 24.12.9S isaied by tiie State Sovemment of AAadhya Pradesh. 4. In subsequent cases, i.e., V»'ritPetition (5.) No.4130 of 2005 {^Sopesh Kivmw Verma *s. The Stafe Sovt. of ChhatHsgarh and anothei') <md other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pur-sucuit to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretau-y, Board of Secondary Education. giopa! and the prospeetus of Diploroa in Education Examinatiwi, it was clarified thut the nomenciature of the Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as DipSoma in Edueation, i.e., E3.Ed. Accordingly, the ES.Ed. Certificute holders ar-e ulso covered by the decision in Writ Petition (5.) No.4130 of 2005 (&yesh Kumar- '/ertnaw. The Sfate Gwt. of °A and uflotAw) (Supra). 5. L.earned counse! for the petitioner further submits that -riie facts and question of iaw involved in the present case is squcrely covered by decision of this Court in the coise of Vashwant Kitfnar Bharadwaj Vs. Munictpa! Coi^oration. Durg and another (Supro), to which ieamed counsel appearing for -tiie respondents fairiy coneedes and agrees with the averment made by Searned eounsei appearing for tSie petitioner. 6. Accordingiy, the writ petition is ullowed in terms of the or-der pasad ri the case of yasln»ant Kijniur Bharadwa^ Vs. Mwiic Corporation. ESurg mfd another (Supro), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired E5. Ed. Exami'nation Cerj-ificate on his own e^ien^s as per the cireulars dated 24.12.1998 & 1.3.1999 dnd further whe1+ier he has been puid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Bsbii Sd/- SatishK.Agnifaotri Judge [