HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR WRn'P6TITION >No.3^^ofcM PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Mansha Ram Sahu. flsQe about 38 years, Asst. Teacher, S/o Shri Kejau Ram Sahu, Govt. Primary School, Tendua, Block - Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State GovL of GhhatU^aih, Through- Secretery, School Educafion E)e(Kirtment Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education OHteer, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Bloclc Education Offlcer, Block - Abhanpur, Distt. - Ralpur fC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. JusUce ^tish K. Agnihotri Shn Somkant Verma, Advoerte for the pdiBoner. Shri Arvind Dubey, F^inel Lawyer fwthe State / respondents. ORDER (Passed on 13ttl day of June.2007) Leamed counsel appearing for ttie p^itioner as well as for the State/respondents Jointly submit that the fact and quesUon of law involved In the present wrtt p^itlon are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Munieipal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}, which tas been dispwed of vhle ofder dated 03.04.2006. Learned counset appearlng (or the respondente does not controvert the said submisston. Insubsequent cases, i.e., Writ PetiUon (S.) No.4130 of 2006 (Gopash Kumar V^ma vs. r/»eState Govt ef CMiattlsgwti and anothw) and other connected mattera, decided by this Court on 18-12-20)6, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-19^, Issued by the Secreteiy, Board of Secondary Ediication, Bhopal and ttie prospectus of Diptoma in Education Examination, it was clartfied that the nomenclature of dw ^ Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Educatton, i.e., D.Ect; Accordfngly, the D.Ed. Certiflcate hotdeis are atso covered by the decision in Wrtt PeUtion (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Venna vs. The State fiovt of(MisMsgwti and anathw) (Supra). 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the orcter passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Munlcipal Corporation, Durg and anottier (Supra), sub^ct to veriflcalton af the fect as to whether the petiUoner has acquired D.Ed. E)eimination Certiflcate on his own expenses as per the cireidars dsted 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1^9 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. B/- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge