/~ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioners P s No 333) 2oo Bi/agwat Smgh Thakur, S/o Shrl S khdev Slngh Aged about 46 yrs , Assastant Teacher, M1ddle School Teram, Block Gharghoda, Distt. igarh, R/o Baikunthpur, Rai rh, Distt. RaigamG.) JKI'féhna’ Chand Yadav, Aged S/oM] about or Singh 44 Yadav, yrs., mt ’v Teacher, Middle School, Chotiguda, Block Gharghoda, ID1stt Ralgarh R/o Balkunthpur, Ralgarh Dlstt Ralgarh (C G) / Toran S1ngh Sldar, S/o Memsmgh Sldar, Aged about 44 yrs , Ass1stant Teacher, Prlmary School Tibhaudih, Block Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, R/o Gram Saraipali, Post Patrapali (Jindal), Tehsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Respondents : Versus “State of C.G. Through : Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Efrector, Tribal Welfare, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Ass1stant Commissmner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Distrlct Ralgarh (C G ) 4. Block Education Oflicer, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22‘6OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICI ILARS OF PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title above. I W \g IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS U (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritin‘ker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 2805 of 2008 PETITIONER Bhagwat Singh Thakur And Others VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri anish Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri, Vivek Sharma, PL for resondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (26.10.2010) Lrd counsel appeaing fr te petitioners ell as for he State/rpondents jointly submit that the fat and question of Iaw involved in the preset writ peition are t same to that of in Yashwant Kuar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Croration, Durg and another {2006 (Ii) MPJR-CG 96}, which has een dispsed of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Learned counsel pearing for the respodents does not controvert the said submission. 2. In subsequ cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The Sta Govt. f Chhattarh and another) and othe connected atters, decided by this Crt n 15.12006, pursnt to the memo dated .1.195, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary dcation, Bhopal and the prspectus of Diploma in Education Examinatin, it m B am a te ld t d 1 "( N 3. ordingly,» the writ petio is allowed in terms ote der passed n the case of Yswant Kumar BhadWaj v. te o isg r m ou o .2 ua 289 Eu o o was ciarified that the noenclature of the Basic Training Institute, i.e., .T.l. has been changed and rened as Diploma in Eduction, i.e., E.Ed. Accodingly, the D.Ed. Certifica hoers are also covered by he ecision in Writ Petition (S) No. 430' of 2005Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The StateGovt. of Chhattisgarh and another) (supra). H R M p eane r o h as w t es c n t he m op b o ap n ent Acc tin f‘h or i ah ra Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), Subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners‘ have acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on their‘own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. ._.2.— ”x Sri/~ " ‘ t, Pritinkel- x Ir Eiwaker \ r .. JUdge