^^^^ S.B. rService Matterl IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATHSGARH) WRITPETTnON fSt NO.-5'<°J?r^/20Q6. PETmONER: ..••"' \c ^- Smt Rambha Baghel, W/o Manohar aged about 44 years, Govt. Girls '..;'> :\" 'a<''^y'''./' primaly schooi, Ved Parsada, BIock .••''.'^f'\^.--"'"' Developinent Masturi, TahsU Mastur >-''¥^ ' ^.-' District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. <»°" "^ ><y VERSUS Respondents 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, Througb The Secretary School Education Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raiptir, Chhattisgarh. '^ J,<\.-/", \ f> "'-•A^ 2. Director of School Education Office, (^>->. f^y^"^' ——""—-"—"""" \ ' " r\ I'1 .<.?s?> / ^\ ' ^ D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^' 3. The District Education Officer, Bilaspiu-, Through Block Development Eklucation OflBcer, Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE-226/227_OF THE CONSTrrUTtON OF INDIA S?— y>- HKH COURT OF CWATTIS6ARH AT EELASPUR W.P.fsVNo. 5655 of 2006 Petitioner Smt. Rambha Baghel Versus Respondents Shrte of Chharttisgnrh A others Smglc Bench: Hon'ble AAr. Justice Sctish K. Agnlhofri. Shri Amit Sharma, Adwcate for Ihe Petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. 6ovt. Advocute for •the reSfwndsirts/State. ORDER ttfl (26tf'0ttober,2006) 1. Leamed counsel oppearNig for 1he petitioner submH's that while workng as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner has gone on trainin9 *o improve her qualifications on her own expenses and acquired B. Ed. Examhiation Certificate on 14.7.1992 from Barkatulhh Unn'ersity, Bhopal (Annexure P/5). 2. Accordhig to learned counael for •Ihe petitioner, Ihe petitioner is entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of •this Court m the cuse of Yashwant Kumar Biaradwoy Vs. /Wunicyal Corporcrtion, Dur9 and arwther {2006 W MPJR-C6 96}. This Court in •the ca«af YashtNnnt KunKr Bwrudwaj Vs. Municyal Corporution, Durg and ano-ther (Supra), came to •the conclusion -that the teachers, who had obtowied B. Ed. Examination Certificcrte on his own expenses, are covered by the circular cbted 24.12.98 (Annexure P/l) issued by the State Sovemment of Madhya Pradesh 3. Le<irned counsel for -the petrtwner further submits •that •the facts and question of lcn» nvolved m the present case ere squarely covered by decision of Ihis Courl' in Ihe osse af yashwcnt Kumar Bharadwiaj Vs. AAtMdicipal Corporution, Dwg and ano'ther (5iyra), to which leamed counsel oppeurmg for Ihe respondents f<xir(y concedes and cgrees with Itie overment made by leaB*ned counsel cppearing for the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, Ihe «witpetition is allowed in terms of the order passed h the case of yashwunt Kumar Btwradwaj Vs. Kunicipat Corporation, Durg and ano-ther (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether •the petitioner has acquired B. Ed. Examination Certificate on her own expenses or not. No order astocosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Bablu ^-