i^s 5 ^.^ s ^ •," ?^:;: "' , „; &{itt(LE ItCiliuS'e i ^ '~V~Q IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. ^ G ' /200»7 PETITIONER ...•-:2f •^^ ^yf^" ^s* .-?' ..•t""^ ^•" df'. .. -.•;**' '•.-"' <<~i .,.?' ^ ^' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 4. Prem Kumar Sahu S/o.- Jaggulal Sahu i Aged about- 42 years, . \ Assistant Teacher, Primary ' School Pathan Dhedgi i Block Chuuriya, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) . | State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through: - Secretary, i School Education Department Ministiy, D.K.S. Bhawan : Raipur (C.G.) i Assistant Commissioner, 1 Tribal Welfare Department, Jagdalpi-u- Collector, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Principal, I Primary School Pathan Dhedgi Block Chuuriya, Distt.- : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. XI-HC-78 *<l*1WISh*<|ch 's^ ^ww-t, (Snflu'Kc, Riiniyy i^.PCs)iJt. 2-^<1 ^ 2007 3i(^i <4at»>('i'at^'a'^ff) sn^T^iil^-ii* (W 311^1 sbll* ST(nwirf?(f3:n^r <hl'Mli1''fl-l 11*1ffl'^'tec&<Rl+<ll<. ilisrt^Tsn^r .S?bii 18.1.2007 Mr. Ravi Maheshw<|iri, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr, &ishil Ciui^ey, Sovemment advocate for the respondents/State, Wilh the consenll matters are heard finalM Common order dic Court, passed separately of teamed counsel for the parties, the and dispo^d of. •ated in W.P. (s) No. 201 of 2007 in open A copy of this ord^r be pfaced on record in other connec+ed writ petitions. Sd/- satisbK.Asnit^ ;e P.T.O. ^*,, )0' HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSSARH ATBILASPUR SIN6LE BENCK : MON'BLE MR.SATESH K. A6NIHOTRI. J. ^ WRTT PFTmON (5.1 N0. 201 OF 2007 Petitioner versus Rfesoondents Prem Kumar Sahu State Sovemment of Chhorttisgarh and others WRrTPETmON fS.) N0. 202 OF 2007 Petitioner Resoondents versus Khetchand (Sarhpayale State Sovernment of Chhattisgarh and ol+iers WRTT PFTmON (S.) N0. 203 OF 2007 Petitioner versus Resbondents Alorf<hram Sahu State Sovemment of Chhatt-isgarh and o-thers WRrr pErmoN rs.) NO. 204 OF 2007 Petitioner versus Reaiondents Vimla Moheshwari State Sovernment of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT^ETrrtON fS.) N0. 205 OF 2007 Petitioner versus Respondents Balvant Singh State Sovernfflent of Chhattisgarh and others .^ WRTT PETmON (5.1 N0. 206 OF 2007 Pigtitioner vwa.is Respioridents &urjan SinghSilata State Sovernment of Chhattisgarii and others wftrr pErmoN (s^ NO. 207 OF 2007 Petitioner versus Respondents Jagbir Jarmuna State Sovemment of Chhattisgarh ond plfiers And WRTT PETmON fS.lNO 208 OF 2007 Petjtipner verais Resoonclents Prohldid Kumar Amariya State Sovemment of Chhatt'isgarh and others Present : Mr. Ravi MahaAwari, Advpcote for the petitioners. j Mr. Sushil Oubey, 6ovemmenT /(dvoccrte for The 5tnte/responctents. ¥- ORDER 1 (Passed on 18th Oayofjanuary, 2007) Ueamed counsel appearing for the petitioners as well os leamed Government Advocate appearing for. the State/responclentsjoihtlysubmitthatthe factsoind question of law involved in the present batch of writ petitions are squarely covered by the clecision of this Court in the case of yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj vs. Mwifelpal Cmpwwtim. ^sy and OMf'fw^. - -..„ ^- 4. In subsequent cases, i.e., WritPetition (5.) No.4130 of 200S IjSopesh IQMHJV Vfrmavs. Th«Statf Sovt. of ChlwW^arh and anortief) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006. pursuont to the memo dated 28-1-1995. issued by -Hie Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was clarified +hat the nomenctature of the |Basic Trainin9 Institute. i.e., B.T.I. hos been changed and jrenamed as Diptomain Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the |O.Ed. Certificate holders ars also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (5.) No.4130 of 200S (fftpesA Kjmar Vermaw. ^Tfie Sia-te Govt.ofChhattisgca'h andanoihei) (Supra). For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are di^iosed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the matter of Yadiwcvit KutRar Bharvdwaj {Svsffd^, subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ect. Certificates at their own expenses asper thecirculars dated 24-12-1998 and l-3-1999 qnd furt'her whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. A copy of this orderbe pfaced on the record of the connected writ petitions. S(V- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 [2006ai)MPJR-CG96 Bablu