^ C^l/-_^z5'' IN THE ^"6 ^%^<^' 4'y^ ^yy' '<^.^ »•' tjft*MI<^ ^ ^\ II N1 likl fs. ^. ^l'v ^Tatt^ Oitf'sisa 8»n®s ,h W.P. (S) No.......';7.?..9^.........2011 -^" 1. Ku. Premlata Rai, Aged 35 Years, D/o Shri T.D. Rai, Shikchha Karmi Grade II, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Semaria Ward no 7 charai ship, Ahiwara Nandini nagar Duq 2. Sm.t. Sushma Patil, Aged 38 Years, W/o Shri R.D. Patil Shikchha Karmi Grade II (Science) Govt. High School Dhudhwa Block Patan District Durg ( C.G.) Before Marriage Ku. fQi i Ll. ^ 3. Smt. Lata Verma, Aged about 35 Years, W/o Shri V.P. Verma Shikchha Karmi Grade II (Maths) Govt. High Secondary School Marra, Block Patan District Durg (C.G.j 4. Smt. Maheshwari Sirraaor, Aged 35 Years, W/o Resham. lal Sirmour, Shikchha Karmi Grade II Govt. Higher Secondary School MEU-ra, Village post Marra District Durg (C.G.) 5. Ghanshyam Mandavi, Shikchha Karmi Grade II, S/o Shri Baliar Mandavi, aged about 35 years, Govt Higher Secondary School, Marra Villaee Post Marra The State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, J3hawan. Raipur, Distt. Raipur ^i'p. n. 2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchyat Durg, District Durg fC.i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE :i@!) - •ri:3>'^.. % ^SS^-^S 'i:, '""' J /? Q fflGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) N0. 3388 rf2011 PETmQNERS RE8PONDENTS Ku. Premlata Rai & others. VERSUS The State ofGhhattisgaA & O&CTS. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJTIONOFJWDIA Coram: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotei & Hon'ble Shri Raxflie Shyam Sharma, JJ. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate fw the petitioiMrs. Shri M.P.S.Bharia, Dq>uty Govemment ASvocate fwthe State/respondent No. 1. ORDERifORAL) (Passed <m 30111 day ofJune, 2011) At the very outset, leamed counsel appearmg for tfae petitioners suhmits Ihat Ifae issue asto whethw tiie condifion to possess B.Ed/ D.Ed certificate as an essential qualifieation for promotion fiom Shiksha Karmi Grade II to Shiksha Kamu Orade I, can t» prescribed in Chhsttisgarii Panchayat Shikdia Karnu (Reauitmmt and Conditions ofServices) Rules, 2007 eame upfw consideratioa before a Division Bench of this Court ia Siiv Kumar Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others^ and ofiier connected matters. The Divisi<m Bench, relying on a decision oftlw Siqn-eme Court in P.UJoshi v. Acccuntcmt Generaf and TJf£leclricfty ST ^ 4. Board v. TJf£lectricity Bocavi TfKskilar A^dciya Sangosm3 held Ihat the impugned rule is in&a-vn'es and passed eertaindirectiQns. Shri Shrivastava further suhnuts tiiat (he facts and question of law iavolved in the uistatt case are one and the same to thrt of Shiv KumarPatel & Others (supra). Thus, this petitioa may be disposed ofinthe same temis. Leamed eounsel scppeaimg for the State does not eotitrovert tfae above sutaaission. In view ofthe above, ao lurthar adjudication in tte instant ease is required as the facts and questi<m of law are caie and the same. Accordin^y, fhe writ petttion is diqwsed of in tenns of Shiv KumarPatel & Others (supra). Sd/- SATBH K. ANGNIHORI Judge Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Aarit