^ I'll^l?!' F RPM^U :i;i.ai^;[L.^ C;L.i^ti?H ^. ^^fw^__ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER ^/y r^W/ iy 8 ^••-<v ^^ •sf . -••" <t<" pl •^" y SPONDENT W. P.(Sl. NO.5-6-^/ /2006 :, ^ Smt. Jageswari Bhagel W/o Shri Ram Kumar Banjare Ageabout41 years, Village-Abhanpur, Post-Abhanpur Behind Temple of Uparpara Abhanpur Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) /t. District Education Officer Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner most humbly submits as under:- ^< ^>. @ HI6H COURT OF CWATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fSi No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : MiBghanath Yadav Versus Respondents ; State 6ovt. of Chhattia9arh A fliwther W. P.(aNo. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner : Gvjaidhw Prdand Sohu Versus Respondents : State6ovt.ofCWiattiS9orhAono'ther W. P.fSiNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner ; RanKuhanltcr Sup'ta Verais Respandents : State 6ovt. of CWuittiagnrh A onolher W. P./aNo. 8638 of 2006 Petitioner TeeknmLal Sinhu Versus Respondents : Sttttefiovt.ofChhtrttiagarhAano'thcr W.P.ffflNo. 5639 of 2006 Pktitioner : Smt. Sunita Pnl Versus Raspondents : Stoteewt.ofChhattisgarhAcnolher W. P.faNo. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner : Mahboob Khan Qunrishi Verais : Statefiovt. ofChhul liayurh Adnolher W.P.rS»No.S641of2006 : Smt. Jageswuri Bhagel Reapondents Ptotitionw Veraus Respondents : StutBSwt.ofChhattisgarfiAawthw W. P.fStNo. 5642 of 2006 Petrtioner : Tutendra Kumer Tiwari Versus fteapondents : Stcrt»6ovt.ofChhB(ttKgarhAano'thcr W.P.ffflNo.S643of2006 Petitwner Raniavlcr yada»u WBMUS Respondents : Stnte 6ovt. of Chhul liayuili aawlher ^" r- Petitioner Reapondents Retitioner Respondents Pktitioncr Reapondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondents PetitkNier Respondents Petitioncr Reapondents PetHwner ftafinfl»Mlan'h W.P.fSlNo.B644<>f2006 : AnujRamSahu Veraus : Stutefiovt.ofChhattisgBrhAano'ther W. P. f5) No. 5646of 2006 : Ri^jenAv Kunwu'6up*n Versus State fiwt. ®fChhafis9nrh d diwther W. P.fSlNo. 5647 of 2006 Sharad Tiuiari Versua : Stat«6ovt.ofChhattisgarhAnnother W. P.fS^No. 5648 of 2006 : AUiendruPruaadShuklu Vwsus : StBtefiwt.of Chhattto9nrhAcnothw W. P.fSlNo. 8673 of 2006 : fiunbhoeahan Sohu Veraus ; Stute 6wt. of Chhuttisgnrh A ano-ther W. P.fftNo. 5674 of 2006 : 5nt. Jaya Tiwnri Versus : Stu*e6wt.ofCWia*tia9arhAano-thw W. P.fStNo. 5675 of 2006 : Tuka Rnm Chandnknr Versus State 6ovt. of Chhattia9arh A ano'ther W. P.fStNo. 5676 of 2006 Rnmesh Kumar Verniu Veraus : StateStfvt.ofChhattisgarhAuwther And W. P. (5)No. 5677 of 2006 Vcrsus DhonaoyPatel State 6ovt. »fChhuttiagarh A cholhcr Siigto Bmich: Hon'ble Mr. Justkx Satiak K. Agnihotri. Shri Ajoy 5hrivustam, Advocotc for -the Ptotitionws. Snt. Aiju Ahuja, Dy. 6ovt. Adwcorte for •rtw reapundenta/Stat*. ORDER (26tl'0ctober,2006) 1. Leamed counsel appenring for •Hw petitioners subroits •tha* Nihile working as Asastant TeucteraA^pper Owisitm Tcachera/Lechirers, •the petitioners haw gone on truinin9 to improve Ihea- qiwlificatwns on thwr win cqiuwes ond acquircd B. Ed7B.TJ Examination Certtficate. The present writ petitions, faeing WJ»^S) Noa. 56^/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006. 5638/2006. 8639/2006, 5640/2006. S64V2006. 5642/2006. 5643/2006, 5644/2006. 5646/2006. 5647/2006. 5648/2006.5673/2006.5674/2006. 5675/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 inwlw ainiilar focts and common qucstion of law. Thus, 1heae petitions are being dispwed of by Ihis common ordw. Acconlmg to leamed counael fur Ihe petitioners, Ihe petftioners are entitled to •hw adwnce increments in viw of Ihe decision of -this Court' h Ihe caae of yoahwunt Kunwr BwrudNKy Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and ano'ther (2006 CEE) MPJR-C& 96}. Tliis Cburt in Ihe caae of Yaahwant Kunur BharodNuj Vs. Municipal Corporution. Durg and arwthm" (Supra), came to -the conclusion •Ihat Ihe teuchcrs. who hod obtained B.Ed./B.TJ. Examhiatian CBrtifiwte on his own expenses, are covered by Ihe drcukir duted 24.1258 isued by •the State Sovemment of Atadhya PpBKleah. 4. Lsamed counael for •the petitfonera furrticr subnrits •that Ihe faets and question of luw inwlved in •rt—present cas»s ant squarely cwensd by decision of this Court h •the aae of YaahNnnt Kumar Bhcuwltiaj Vs. Municipal Corpamtion, Durg ond ono-ther (Supra), •h> tihich leurned coum»lcppcarirg for •the reapondents fairly concedted ond agrees wfth the awrmcnt nnde by leamed cwinsel appearing for Ihe pctitieners. 5. Accordingly, Ihe writ petdiona are allwed in terms of Ihe ordcr passed in •the case of yaahiKint Kuinnr Bwwd«Ky Vs. 1 Municipal Corporution, Durg and ano'ther (Supra), aibject *o verification of the foct as *o mhether •lh«petrtionera haw acquired 8. EA/B.TJ. Examinatwn Cn'tificute on •their o»in expenSBS or not. No onter as to casts. 6. A copy of Ihis order be placri on record of alher connedad twit petitwns. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge BaUu