C^/ZTS) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No....T7^.c'0....2006 Petitioner ^- Smt. Budhantin Bai Netam aged 52 yrs ...'D/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Netam, o"""ll/.--"'' -••'* ...••"'Assistant Teacher, ^'^.'Jo..--"'"" -"""— "--"~' ,t-'^-$Y^ Govt. Girls' Primary School, ^•~"^'12>)v ^<5'".«^^7''' Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) ^€- Versus Respondents ...... 1. The State Governin,ent of Chhattishgarh Through the Secretary, School Education, Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) y f^- Writ petition under articles 226/22Tofthe Constitution Oflndia for issuance of writ in the nature of MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION & for Other suitable WRIT or WRITS, ORDER or ORDERS. DIRECTION or DIRECTIONS. X3-HC-78 3n^T^)Tf^TR? dOT-W^Tshflti Gopal *11<4MI 9iff^f> 3^ •<<]<)icii|^i'nfl<ri6, Ridwy / ^)^(S) <~^ ^5<s&/c>6 CT^ 200 3n^rl<at*> (l?'^'5"?:^) SRnwdfscfan^r 3-1-2fl07 NDr Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. Ajay Rajput, Mr. B.L.Dembra, Ashwani Shukta, counsel Mr. Arun Sao, Governmer)t Government Advocats ant for the State/respondentsj learnW <»ii<<[«<fl-<ii*<ciTfftet3'<Ri«i< ^sri^ffSIT^T ihrivastava, Mr. Anil Singh r. Vijay K. Deshmukh and Mr. forthepetitioner(3). Advocate, Mr. Sushil Dubey, d Ms. Sunita Jain. Panel Lawyer counssl appearing for the parties, the .ed of. n Writ PeSition (S.) No.7237 of 2006 in With the consent of matter is heard finaliy and dispo^ Common order dictated it open Court, passed separately. A copy of this order be pl^ced on the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge P.T.O. \' ^v |U) to 16 ID- 1(1) \tt i'.9 1»>. lt~»- iF-d^ 10 |3 1(1) "i <Bo VI El3 <B 3 l(fl It: 1</1 BK B)3 E> OT S) Z M A <Btn •g o !^i \tl. 1(1) l&r <s- f"4- 1"^- ;0 i:I in> /-l <1> (i)u ,0 l:.iIri. |n>:s ISi- wsr •;'a' a> uu^ 7® F* VI o- rj"a" tfi <s "<;-9 la (Bea -< (tf o ff 3' 3- B> F'¥ .t» (QQ 3- ea E)3 Q- f-^r wj" (1) :r ff>x £: 3s>Js j— 0g B) z u CQ 3© U)ao^ ;n> 1^1 ic-.s" M tB v> 1^1 ^ks' C;. "••••it ?'.. u> ia C) "th1lI B>•^ a. s- (1> 3 7:. u> o c» sr o ii w z m s?" Sa< -I 'r~ (S.) N0. Peti.tioner Shankar LalSoni versus Rsspondsnts itate Govt. of Chhattisearh and others WR5T (S.) OF Petitioner Bhuwan Lal Sahu Respondsnte versus The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PI=TiT!nM -'fi 1 N0 75Sf -W¥r<<tl i 3 '£^ U 5 I'i^i'V |'5aj 'iW'i.fsS &^S: 20i Petitioner Smt. Sandhya Sah' Rssoondents The State Government of Chhattisgarh T PETl' 'S.) N0.7257 OF 200) Petitioner Ramakant Chandrakar versus Respondents The State Govsrnment of Chhattisgarh and another 2- & PETIT10N SS.) OF 200' Patltioner Respondents Versus Tameshwar Prasad Dewangan The State Governmsnt of Chhattisgarh and another Pstitioner Ghanshyam Singh Deshmukh versus Respondents Ths State Government of Chhattisga ana anot y- il 3 i r opT!Tir»Mis i i t i ifc^ 1 '^ i ti=f a !w>~ £UUO Petittoner 0iespondents Bhuvneshv/ar Pras.ad Chandrakar vsrsus The State Government of Ch and another ttisaarh MRIT PPTITinM " '^3"'iLi 3 r'i-. ai ; i^^i'^ | petitioner Jay Kumar Patll versus Resoondents The State Governmsrit of Chhattisgarh and another PET! i.7282 OF 20< Petitioner ifiiy r^aiii Respondent; The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another PETiTiON (S.) N0.72S3 OF 201 Petitioner Lal Singh Dhankar iuenis •'ersus 'he State Governrnent of Chhattlsgarh and another ^.1 Petitionsr Vishnu Prasad Deshmukh ^ Respondents versus T'ne State Government and another t?@iT S^TSTI^?^! J% ^ ^ir^. '7^^^ f^S ?3^ Fj^.i j f°'£;..li 1 l^f-4g I'S.J ItiW,.? A^.i^_wr_^ Petitioner Shekh Arman K4usalman tespondente versus State Govt. of Chhatxisgarh and another y WRIT PET1TION (S.l N0.7297 OF 2006 Petltioner Arjun Singh Sahu versus Respondents The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another PETIT10N (S.) N0.?: Petitioner Hari Shankar Sahu versus Respondents Ths State Governnient of Chhattisgarh and another Rs PetitioRer !T,PETrT!ON (S,1NQJ299 QF 2001 Rameah Kumar Barie versus The State Govsrnmsnt of Chhattisgai and another {S.1 N0.7: sn< idsnts Smt. Budhantin Bai Netam versus The State Government of and another Chhattisgarh WRiT PSTITION (S.5 N0.7: Petittoner Govind Prasad Soni versus Rsspondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Pstitioner Lekh Ram Ss.ht vereus ResBondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRiT (S.1NO,72S1_QI Petitionsr Smt. Nlshi S'nan/a versus Respondents State of ChhaBisgarh snd others '.111 'i^F4] .'S.) N T^j 01 Petltioner Yogeshwar Prasad Ganguiy Ressondsnts State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs tas II- ZUUn< Petitioner i.K.Sharma . versus The State of Chhattisgarh and others (S.5 N0,7279 OF2COI Petitioner i.R.Baranas Respondents "ersus The State of Chhattisgarh and others rTOETmON_!j OF 'etitioner Dwarika Prasad Ratnakar Respondents versus State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs Prssent : IVr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, W.r. B.L.Dembra, Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh and Mr. Ashwan' Shukla, counse! for the petitioner(s). Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Gcvernment Advocate and Ms. Sunlta Jain, Panei Lav/yer for the State/resDondents. ORDER (Passed on 3rd Day of January, 2007) Learnsd counsei appearing for the petitioners as siso for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of !av/ involved in the pressnt batch of writ petltions are squarely covsred by the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhsradwaj ation. Durs and another . <' 2. ln subsequsnt casss, i.e., Writ Pstition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 {Gopesh Kumar Verms 'v's. The State Govt. of Chhsttssgarh and anotheii) and other connected matters, decided by thls Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by ths Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopa! snd t'ne prospsctus of Dipioma in Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenclaturs of the Basic Training institute, i.s., B.T.I. has been c'nanged and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are aiso covered by ths dscision in Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanother) (Supra). 3. For the aforementioned reasons, the v/rit petitions are dispossd of in terms of the dscision of this Court In the mattsr of Yas^vant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verification of 'the fact as to '.ivhether the petltionsrs have acquirsd B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at their own expenses as per the circutars dated 24-12- 'C^B!T 1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether they hs.ve bsen paid advance incrsments or not. No order as to costs. 4. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connectsd writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1 2008 (II) MPJR-CG 96 Gops