:fs^H. ^. i^C^PL hv't ^ ^^ 'is '~i t ^ ^ ^B S,.~U<~ L^ 4-1 ii iS ^^ = j3^^r w"' ^.^ -^^^ ^^7^ ^3^.....--""1" ^•••" . < IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) /2006 PETmONER t RESPONDENTS pCmVEB-COPY hE t°fe^^ ;2-^/o.-o6 ^2. ^ A. / Dhansay Patel S/o ShriThanda Ram Patel Age about 42 years, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. PrimarySchool, Jhinka, Block - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) VERSUS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through :Secretary, Tribal Welfare and Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner TribalWelfare Department, I.T.I. Korba (C.G.) District Education Officer I.T.I. Korba (C.G.) Block Education Officer Block Office Kartala, Teh. - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) Joint Director (Funds and Accounts) Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ \ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : Mcghonath Yadav Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A ano'ther W. P. (a No. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner ; SojadhdB' Prasad Sohu Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of OihatHsgarh A ono'ther W. P.fSlNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner : Ranwahankar Suptoi Versus Respondcnts : State 6wt. of Chhattisgarh A ane'ther W.P.(aNo.5638ofZ006 Petitwner : Teekam Lal Sinha Versus Reapondents : Stutefiovt.ofChhattiagarhAano'thcr W. P.fSlNo. 5639 of 2006 Petitioner Rcspondcnts Smt. 5unituPal Versus : Stotc 6ovt. of Chhattis9arh A cnolher W. P.fS) No. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner : Mahbo<A Khan Quraishi Vergus Respondents : Statefiwt.ofChhcrnJagBrhAano'ther W. P.fftNo. 8641 of2006 PBtHioner : Smt. Jageawiari Bha9el Weraus Respondents ; Stutc Scvt. of Chhul I'isgurd A awthw W.P.faNo.S642of2006 Petitionw : Tutendro Kumar Tniuri Versus Reapondents : Stn't* 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A ano'ther W.P.faNo.S643of2006 Petitioner ; Rnmnylar yadaw Wenus Respondents : Stat»6ovt.ofChhulliayurfiAano1hcr Petitioner Reapondents Petitioner Respondcnts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitwner Reapondwits Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondmts Petitioner Respondents W. P.rSlNo. 5644 af 2006 ; AnujRamSahu Veraus : SluteSovt.ofCWKrttisgorhAano'rtNBr W. P.fSlNo. 5646 cf 2006 Rajendra Kumar Supta Versus : State 6ovt. of CWKrttisgarh A anolhcr W. P.faNo. 5647 of 2006 ; 5harad Tiinrj Versus : StateSovt.ofChhattisyn+iAanother W. P.fSlNo. 5648 of 2006 : Mahendra Proand StNikla Versus : Statcfiovt.ofChhotHsgarhAoiKrthw W. P.YSlNo. 5673 of 2006 : fiunbhooahan Sohu Vcrsus : Sta*e6<wt.ofChh<rttiS9nrhAono1her W. P.(S)No. 5674 of 2006 : Smt. Jayu Tiwari Verais : State 6ovt. of Chha*tia9arh &ano'thcr W.P.fStNo.S675of2006 : Tuka Rnm Chandruknr Versus Starte 6ovt. of ChhatMagarh A orwther W.P.ffflNo. 5676 of 2006 : Ranieah Kuniar Vcrine Verais ; Stete6ovt.ofathattis9nrhAano'ther Aid W. P.fSiNo. 5677 of 2006 Versus UKnaayftrtel Stnrte 6<wt. of Chhattiagarh A ano'ther Singto Bmch: Hon'ble Mr. Juatfce Satiak K. Ayiihutri. 5hri Ajoy Shrivastava, Advocate for the Pfctitioners. Snt. Ariju Ahuju, t)y. 6oyt. Adwestv for •th* reapondents/State. OR&ER (26th Oct-ober. 2006) 1. L<amed counsel oppecring for -the petitioners aubmits -that while «»rkin9 as Asaistant TeachwsA/pper Owision Tcachers/Lecturers, the p<stitioners haw 90118 on traunin9 to improve •rtieir qualificationa on their oiin expmaes and acquired B. Ed7B.TJ Examination Certificate. The present writpetitions, being WJ>^S) Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006, 5638/2006. 8639/2006, 5640/2006. 8641/2006, 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006, 5647/2006. 5648/2006, 5673/2006.5674/2006, 5675/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 involw similar fucts and comnwn question of taw. Thus, Iheae petitions are being diaposed of by •this common order. According to leamed counsel for the petitionu-s, Ihe petitiBners ore entitled to Iwo advance increrocnts in view of •the decision of •this Court in the caae of yaahwnnt liuniar Bharadwty Vs. <Aunicipal Corporation, Durg and another (2006 (II) MPJR-C& 96}. This Court in Ihe caue of youhwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Afcinicipal Corponrtion, Durg and ano'thm' 4 i (Supru), cnnie to -the conclusion •thart' Ihe tcnehws, who hod obtBNned B.Ed./B.TJ. Exammation CerMficate on his WMH expenses, are covered by 'the circukxr dnted 24.1258 isaued by •Ihe Stortc Sovernment of Madhya Praiteah. 4. Leamed counscl for -the pctitioners furthcr aibmits Ihat •the facts and qucstion ®flcnii inwlved in •rtr preaent CUSM are squarely cavered by decision of Ihte Coirt in Ihe aae of Ycahwiunt ICumar Bhoradtiuy Vs. Mumcipal Corporation, Owg and ano-ther (Supra), to tihich leamed couirl appcuring for the reapondents fuirty concedes and agrees wfth the cawmcnt made by teamed counael oppeorin9 for Ihe pctitioners. 5. Accordngly, •the writ petitioru an allwed in tenna of Ihc ordw passcd in •the case of yadwiwnt Kunwr Bhanidtwj Vs. Ahjnic4)al Corporation, tSur9 and aiolher (Supra), aibject to vierification of 1he fnc* as *o nhe'ther Ihc petrtioners howe acqutTcd 8. Ed7B.TJ. Ewuninatwn Cn'tificate on Iheir own cxpenaBS ar not. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of •this ordw be placcd on record of o'thu- cnnnecttd Nrit petitions. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Biriilu