In the Honble High Court of Judicature ofChhattishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) w.p.No.j^^:^ 2006 sg^fiLE BEi '}^n^ -^ '1. ...•'•"e>J:"A°>'" .**'-< -/<;\\M»**' -.'•' .c. /? 1 ''.• ^y^ -**'' ^^ ^8".^ '^ ^-- Sureshkumar Gautam, aged 40 years Son of Shri Tulsiram Gautam Assistant Teacher, High School, Urla, Block, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. The State Govemment of Chhattishgarh, Throyghthe Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) JVrit Petition under Articles 226 and 227 oi w the^ issuance of WRIT in the nature o[ MANDAMlls. £CrtwnOT2 Direction or Directions. XI-HC-22 !, 9Tilti'i6, 'faw _.L<2;.^Q^.^1 raT""""""""""""""""""/'^' 200, SD^raiT fe'iRi'an^si s^^i^> ~^^ 3n^iTCnwTi{??r 9-S-ZOQ6 Mr. Ajay Shrivostava, counse! f^rths patitioner. Mr. &.K. Beriwai, Deputy Ae!vo<ifite &eneral with iVir. Sushii Dubev, &ovt. Advocate for ihe State/respondaits. Heard both the counsei. The mcin arievance of the oe-tlitioner raised in +his writ pstition uncier Art-icies 226 and 227 of ?he Constitu-t)ion of India,-is that in apite of passing the 8.Sd. exsminstion at hiscwin expenses tiie y-ear 1993-94.. he is not. being vid®statenient of marks (Annexure P-6) m iiiven the benefit of two advuice urade increments. 'he case of the oetiTioner \s ti incremen+3 as oer the order dsted ndminjstrative Tribunai. On +he idest date of hearmq i.^ 'w?fen!h:t wrcS ^ fe^t'rfSRZR ^7 3lf;<PT ait^f niaT the oetiTioner is M.Sc. & S.Ed. He was app&nted on 1-2-1$S9 aa As-sistant T^sher. It has been mentioned in para 6 of the pefition thot the peTitioner has p^ssed 8.Ed. examinotion at his own cost ahd therefor'e he ia entitted for two afyssncs mcrsmeni-3, and similai-iy situstec! persons Ohirendra Kumar Mishra & ot^iers were given the benefit of two advance 19-4-2001 (Annexure P-3) of the State 25-4-2006, notice has been accepted on behalf of the StaTe/respondents by fhe Deputy Sovt. Adwcate and two weeks' tiine waa aought to fiie reply, TIS! tod(sy:;;w cepiy haa been filed. Tliei'efore, the i Betjtion is being dissosed of based od e+itioner'. The pieadings and documents filed by the niiirlr Trr:"" <2r"t CourtRQad^SiS, XI-HC-22. FE| 'SfpnepI, 'gTtt+l'ls, _..(<0.: 2L_; ^ . • a^fEBT h-i'i't STI^T •i*^i<* •(ftg 3ii^i?Riiwt:a1??i Somo Penisa! of Annexure P-4 dated] Education, MadhycPradesh, shows th| e^affiination before 22-10-1964 and exaffiination after 22-10-1964 on ^^ petitioner passed B.Ed. examinatiori b 1993-94. Per-usal of Annexure P-1, ^rafepfri iwraf-9 •fe'A Tfw?TC q? sifigir sn^s 124-12-1993 issued by the Director, 5chooi bt the teachers who havs oassed the B.Ed. [thc teachers who have passed the B.Ed. tir owsn exfensss shati be entiti'ed for two jre P-6, statement of marks, issued by the yrade incremerits. Perusa! of Annexijr &eputy Registrar, Institute of C^rrespwidencs Cowse.e, shows that the , correspondence course during the session srvics book of the oetjtioner', shows that entry to that effect has been effect-efl in The service book of the petiTioner. even then, the petitioner ia not bein< 1998 oassed by the Director, Scho^ Administrative Tr'ibuna! vide or'der dat grant of tv»oincrements to the simiiarii Lhe above facTusl posi+ion. the petitioijier' 13 aido entitied forsame benefit. In the eircumstances, the resoit jyrade inerernents to the petitioner 1| jexaminaTion. With the difect'mn aforesaidi t9 Partjes are entitied for certifii sjven the benefit of order dated 24-12- Education, ShoDai, whereas, the Stste ed 19-4-2001 (Annexure P-3) crdered for ly situated persons. Therefore, in view of ndents are d>rected to qranl' two advwice i-om the year when he passed the S.Ed. eti e petition stiinda dispoaed of. eopy of this orden— ^^- judge ^, y [^^fia4 '^ S4/^'- -^ *v