fT c^[-QV IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER W. P.(S). NO.5^ 4fo/2006 Mahboob Khan Quraishi S/o Shri Basir Khan Quraishi r ^•^ , /"'~?-'"v\'f^'" .••• Age about 46 years, Village-Amdi '^y<^.--"' .-•••"'d^\\9-1' ^-•y^" ^•:^ Post-Parsada Tehsil - Abhanpur Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) .,^y RESPONDENT iA^ ^y VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh ^ Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S.Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) 2. District Education Officer ^ Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS»No. 5635 of 2006 PktithNier : Ateghanath Yadw Versus Rcspondents : Stute 6ovt. of Chhuttis9arh A ano'ther W. P. (5)No. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner : 6((jadhar Prasad Sahu Versus (tespwidents : State 6wt. of Chhattiagarh A ano'ther W. P.fSlNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner : Ramaahantar Suptn Versus RBSpondents : Shrte 6ovt. of Chhattiagarh A awther W. P.faNo. 5638 of 2006 Petitionw TcekamLel Sinha Versus Reapondents : Stete 6ovt. of Chhat*ia9urh Aano'Hicr W. P. (St No. 5639 of 2006 Pktitioner : Smt. Sunita Pnl Versus Raspondents : State 6<wt. of CMwttugarh A onother JM. P. fS) No. 5640 of 2006 Petitkiner : Mohboob Khan Qurufahi Veraus RespondBnts : State 6ovt. of Chhaniaigarh Aano'ther ^ W. P.fftNB. 8641 of 2006 PetMonw : Smt. Jogeawari Bhagel Veraus Respondents ; Stutc 6wt. of Chhul lisgai-d A oixrthu' <YW. P. fS) No. S642 of Z006 Petitioner : Tulendro Kunwr Tniari Versus Reapondents ;. SlutcSovt.ofChhattisgarhAono'ther i'.P.(S)No.S643ofZ006 Petitioner : Ramnytar Yadowa Weraua Reapondents : s Start* 6<wt. of Chhuttwgarii A aiwlhcr a^. W.^.fSlNo.B644<rfaX)6 Retitioner : AnujftamSahu Veraus Reapondents : Slate6ovt.ofChh<ittisgarhAano1hcr Retitioner Respondcnts ^ W. P.faNo. 5646 of 2006 : Rnyendni Kuniar Supta Versus : Statefiuvt.ofCWwttJsgarhA'anolhcr W. P. f5l No. 5647 of 2006 Pktitioner ; Shnrad TiNnri Versua (tespondents : Stute 6ovt. of Chhattisgnrh A niwther y W. P.fS»No.5648 of 2006 Pktitioner : AAuhmdru Praaad Shukki ^ Versus ' Rcspondents : Stutefiwt.ufChhutttogarhAonolhw W. P.(S)No. 8673 of 2006 Petitioner : Sunbheoahon Sohu Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A anoKw ^W. P. fSl No. S674 of M06 Petitioner : S»t.Jaya Tiwuri Versus Reapondwits : Stntefiovt.ofChhattisgarhdano-ther W. P.fStNo. 8675 ef 2006 : Tuku Ram Owndruknr Versus : State 6ovt. of Chhattiagarh A aholher Ptetitioner Respondents Petitwner W. P.faNo. 5676 of 2006 : Ramesh Kunar Vernw Weraus Reapondents : S*ate6ovt.ofChhuttisgnrhAanB'ther Aid W.P.fSiNo.5677ofa»06 Petitioner DhanaayRntel Vcrsus Respondents : Stute6nvt.Bf ChhuttiagarhAano'thw Sfnsft* Bmch: Hon'ble Mr. JusticeSutiak K. ^gntkutri. Shri Ajoy Shrivustam, Advocate for Ihe Petitionws. Snt. Anju Ahuja, &y. 6ovt. Adwcate for •trnsapondcnta/Stute. ORDER (26tl'0ctober,2006) 1. Leamcd counsel oppearing for the petitioners submrts Ihat dhile w»rkin9 cs Assistant TeachwsA/pper Owision Teachers/Lechirers, •the petitioners hawe gont on trunwg •h» improve 1heir qunlifications on •thcir own expuues and acquired B. Ed7B.TJ E?«nminotionCerl'rfkate. 3. fhs present wit petitions, bwny WJ>^ Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006, 5638/2006. 8639/2006. 8640/2006. 5641/2006, 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006. 5646/2006. 5647/2006. 5648/2006. 5673/2006.5674/2006.5675/2006. 5676/2006 ond 5677/2006 involve amilar faets and common question of b»».Thus, Iheae petifons aro bwn9 diapMed of by •this common order. According to lecmed counsel for •rtie petitionBrs, Ihe petiticners are entitted to Iwo advnnce nci-enients in view of the dedsion of Ihis Court 'm Ihe caae ef yuahtwnt Vwiw Hiaradwgy Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and onolher {2006 W WJK-C6 96}. Tliis Court in Ihe ceue of yaahwant Kumar Gharadwaj Va. Municipcd Corporution. Durg and anolhcr 4 (Supra), came to •the conchwion •(ha* 'the teachcrs. who had obtamed B.Ed./B.TJ. &<amhiution CBTtificut'e on his own expenscs, are covered by Ihe circulaB- tfated 24.12^8 isaued by •the State Oovemment of Madhyu PrudMh. 4. Leumed counsBt for •fhe petitionera furlhef subnrita-Itiat Ihe fucts and qucsMon of IUN inwlvBd in 1h« preaent oas»sare squarely covered by decision of •this Court in Ihe caae of Yaahiwnt Kunur BharadNioy Vs. Municipal Corporation, Ourg and ano-ther (Slipro), to »ihich leamed .1 appcurirg for •the reapondcnts fuirly concedas and agws «»fththe owennent nwde by leomed counsel appeorirg for Ihe pctttioners. 5. Accordingly, "the writ pctitions are ullowBd in terms of 1he order pasaed in •the casc af yashwant Kunur Bharudoiy Vs. Municipal Corparution, Dur9 and ano'ther (Supra). aubject t» wrification of Ihe fact as to ,«he1her 1h« petrMoners hnw acquired B. EA/B.TJ. Ewuninutwn CirHficate on Iheir o»n expenses or not. No order a< to casts. 6. A copy of Ihis ordw be ptaced on record ef olher" connec*«d writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Babtu