'i&51?8 C E/S»;;'-. ^ fy^a ?" n^ ^f 'K - ' r J-/13D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(S) N0. 33'^-/200^ PETITIONER ^ft^. v^'^^""' r^f^Jf l'^ <?'• ••' REgPONDENTS .,F.Q^°^ Maliettar Ram Kam.albanshi, Son C/^ of Shri Jeth Singh Kamalbanshi, Aged about 44 years, Assistant Teacher, Goveminent Priiaary School Bhaknudi, Block Dharanijaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^ys rcS^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Departaient of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bha^wan 2. The District Education OfGcer, District Raigarh (C.G.). 3. The Bock Education Of&cer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). .^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE (226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE n XI-HC-78 3n^r5RrR-<i»b (raraii^iii ^iW'ti Subbu ^d qiH?TT ai^T^ TS! ^iiiw'f, a-rfl+i'is, Riditiy ..^:f:.c.Q^:.^n^T 200i7 3(1^1 4a<*> (4cli^°f<^'T) tTWBl%(T3.IT^r 22.1.2QQ7 /Ar. Ashwini Shukla M.iss Sunita Jain, P^me! lawyer for the respondents/State i-rti the con»nt matl'ers are heard finally Coramon order dic-S^ted in W.P. (s) No. 337 of 2007 in open Court, passed separoteiy A coov of this ord4 writ petjtion. 'bl'ili'd'ifl-f tll^cil'iffe^ <SvlW{ ^isrf^q'an^r counsel for the petitioners. of tearned counse! for the parties, the ond di^osed of. r be ptaced on record in other connected SdA Satish K.Agmhotri Judge P.T.O. B '^'^^^^^6^^^? /"\ HT6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BIUtSPUR SIN6LE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. S-4TISH K. A6NIHOTRI. J. WR3T PETTHON (5.1 N0. 337 OF 2007 "srsus Mahettar Ram Kamo.Sbanshi State of Chhattisgarh and others Ar,d WRFT PFTTTrON iS.) N0. 338 OF 2007 Petitioner Respondents Stnte of Chhattisgarh and others Preserit : Mr. Ashwini Shukla, counsel for the petitioners. Miss Sjnita Jain, Pane! Lawyer for The State/responden+s. (Passed on 22nd &ay of January, 2006) 1. Leamed counsel c^pearing for the petitioners as we!! os icd Pane! iawyer ap'pearinQ for the State/respondents submit +hot the facts and question of law involved in aresent writ petitions are squarely covered by the iion of this Court in the case of yashwant Sharadwsj vs. Munleipal Cwyotwtlen, Qwg and anothe^. 2. In ajb^iyient cases, i.e., Writ Petition (5.) No.5862 of 2006 IOT7 gv afid othersi and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 12-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Shopal and the prospectus of Dipioma in Education Examination. it was clarified that 1+se nomenclature of the Basic Troining Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as Diptoma in Education, s.e., D.Ed. AccordingSy, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (5.) No.5862 of 2006 ^Hemant Kumar Wdiwakarma'/s. Stals of £3ihatHsgarfiaidoiher^j (&jpro). 3. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Couri- in the matter of Yashwanf Kumar Bharvsdwaj (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired D.Ed. Certificate at their own expenses as per the circuiars dated 24-12-1998 and S-3-1999 a-.d furttier whsther tiiey have been paid +wo odvance increments or not. No order as to costs. 4. ,4 copy of fnisorder be placed on record in other connected wrlt petition. ——— Sd/~ SatishK.Agnihotri Judge t 2006CTI))iAPJR-Ce96 Subbu