S1NGLE BENCH GA- \- IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCSSARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS)NO. ^(fc!5^ / 2011 Petitioner ..•••V.. ^^^ ..-••' \^'(^x..--c^J-- -.-••• '..-<^""...-<A/^'V .^0""^'''...-""; \1>' ^..<0'- y- Versus Respondents ; Jagjivan Banerjee S/o Shri Goutam Banerjee, Aged about 45 years, Upper Division Teacher at Sovernment Middle School, Hospital Road, Jarve, Block - Sakti, bistt. Janjgir Champa- (C.6.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur- (C.6.) District Education Officer, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.6.) Joint Director, Account and Treasury, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.6.) 4. Block Education Officer, Block - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.6.) WRIT PETITTON UN&ER ARTrCLE_226 OFTHECONSTITUTTON OFINDIA /^^ f' ^ '' — 2. 3. A—a^a. ,.^A, ^^B ''•&>. HIGH COVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrlvastava, J. 0>f^ W.P.fSl N0.461S/2011 Petitloner Jagjivan Banerjee versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Respondents Petition u/A 226 ofthe CoasUtution oflndia Appearance: Shi-i A.S. Rajput, counsel for fhe petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 12.8.2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance tncrements on passin^ B.T.I. exanimation, on his own expenses, betbre entering into service. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue mvolved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxenav. State ofM.P. & Ors.1 as well as by tlus Court in Yashwdnt Kumar Bhccradwaj v. ' Municipal Corporation, Durg and anofhei6 and Gopesh Kumw Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another3. \2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 \)06 (II) MPJR-CG 96 \(sJNo.4130of2005 Q 3. Leamed counsel further submits fhat the instant petition is squarely covered by fhe decision as aforestated. Thus, fhe petitioner may be pennitted to make a representation to decide his case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to vert&cation of the facts asto whether fhe petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certtflcate on his own expenses before entering into service. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits fhat now fhe State Govt. has also issued an order on 5th January, 2011 (Annexiire P-4). 4. Leamed counsel appeartng for fhe State subinits that in the event, fhe petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in fhe light of fhe decisions of the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena (supra), as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Copesh Kumar Venna (supra), within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of foregoir^, according to the leamed coiinsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing siirvives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, fhe writ petition is disposed of. Praffeea Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge