•^y^j^j ^. g^i '^''c.w'^''-.^- ?&.. iLj ;y- a .^S.-s?' ? ,-d01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.Wf /2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^"^ l-^'-- ,..-•• %^ ^<s ! /•'' Smt Nilkiran Tiwari W/o Bharat Lal Tiwari aged about 46 years, Head Master Govt. Primary School, Mouharkhar (Kota), Block- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (G.G.) 1. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -b-uinliL'_and_j-es@ectfylly begs to mGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR %7MT PETmON (S) No. 5611 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Nilkiraa Tiwari. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Haa'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Ashwani Shukla. Advocats for flie Detitiaier. Sfari A-V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passedon llalday rf November, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. I. By ttiis petition, tlie petitioner ssekg a direction to the respandents to pay two advaaceincrements from fhe date ofpassing ofD.Ed examination. on her own expenses, during her service period. 2. Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is ao longer res integra a& the same has been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of Tash-want Kzanar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corpordtion, Durg and a'wtker and Gopesh Kianar Verma v. The State Govt. ofChhcittisgarh and anothe^ . 3. Shri Shukla fiirther submits that the instant petition is squarely coveBed by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to mAe a representation to decide her case in the Ksht of aforestated decision, subject to veriJBcation of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed CMtificate on her own expenses durine the course ofher service. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents subnrits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be eonsideied and decided, in aceordance with law and in the light of the decision ofthis Court ia Tashwant Kumar Bharadwaf and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. £iview offoregoing, according to the leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner, nothins survives in this petitioa for adjudication. 6. Aceordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ~^~ 7. —-- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ' 2006 (D) MPJS.CG 96 2WP('SiNo.4130of2005 T^ftB+W.