^.^ 3 B SPORE _CTIE__HQN,'_BI,E STATE ADI-IINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BESTCH RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH Orl^.Uial A!3@U.cati©nNo,__ \^__/2002 Sandlp Dubey^ Son of shri Krishna Kymar D^bey^ Age 28 years^ Assistant Teacher Posted at Prlmary School Ganlyari (Dr») Block and District Durg (C.G.) 2< Manik Lal Patel, Son of Shri Agarhij Ram Patel^ Age 39 years^ Assistant Teacher^ Posted at Primary sohool Bhansi3.li ^ 31ock Pataa^ District Dixrg (C^G<») 3^ Horl Lal Sahu^ Soa of Shri Jivrakhan Sabu^ Age 46 years<y Asslstant Teacher^ Govt. Mlddle School Kesara^ Block Paten, Distrlct Durg (C«G.) / 't 4e Bhanu Ram Khewar^ Son of Shrl Khewar^ Age 38 years^ Asslstant Teacher^ Govt. Prlmary School Chtinkatta, Block Patan^ District Durg (C.G.) ;,^Kj\'^l^.\ t«aBSBKiK W ^ ^} ^ ss 02 $: 5» Smt. Kalpana Dewangan^ Daughter of Shri Gajendra Kumar Dewangan^ Age 33 years^ Assistant Teacher^ Posted at Govt. Prlmary School Phekarl^ Sankul Kendra Selad^ Block Patan^ District Durg (C.G.) 6^ Smt. Kaushilya Khaparde^ Assistant Teacher^ Age 39 years^ P©stedat Govt^ Girls Prlmary School Selud^ Sankul Centre^ Selud^ Block Patan^ District Durg (CoG») 7« Smt< Sangita Thakur^ Wlfe ©fShri KeK<i<I<hakyr^ Age 33 years^ Assistant Teacher^ Govt» Girls Primary School Bhilal^ Distrlct Dvrg. 8<» Srato Klran Mayl Jamre^ VSife of Shri Takhat Ram Jamre^ Age 35 years^ Assistant Teacher^ Govt^ Prlmary School^ Arkar^ Dlstrict Durg (C,G<) Versus State of Chhattisgarh^ Through Secretary^ School Educatlon Department^ Mantralay a^ D»Ko S•Bh awan^ Raip ur^ Chh atti sg arh ^ Applicants ::I:J ^- :i O^ ss 2< Dlrector^ Public Instruction^ Pensioa Bada^ Raipur (Chhattlsgarh)» 3o District Sducation Officer, Education Dlstrict Burg^ Dlstrict Durg (C.G») <» ^ i^on- |L_ AP^I.CATION_UN^^SECTIOg_19^^S_S?^2E_^4^IS,T^A^2S S£IB.lMALA^.»i§Q5. r' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petitioners WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4524 OF 2005 Sandip Dubey and others versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitjoners Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4637 OF 2005 Shyam Sundar Sharma and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ^ ^ Petitioners ResDondents WRIT PETITION IS.) N0.4407 OF2005 Umesh Dwivedi and another versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4410 OF 2005 Petitioners : Smt. Anju Raghav and another yersys " Respondents : State ofChhattisgarh and others Petitioners WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4082 OF 2005 Ashok Kumar Deonath and others versus Respondents : Stete of Chhattisgarh and others Petitipners WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4521 OF 2005 Chandrakant Sahu and others versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another Present ; Mr. Anupam Dubey and Mr. Kunal Das, counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy. Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ;th ORDER (Passed on 15'" Day of December, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of !aw involved in the present batch of writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj vs. Municipa! Corporation, Durg and another^. 2. In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and anothei) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on l^aa .^ ^ 5(J:: 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education. Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenclature of the Basic Training Institute, s.e., B.T.J. has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 {Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. ofChhattisgarh andanother) (Supra). 3. For the aforementioned reasons. the writ petstions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verificatlon of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24-12- 1998 and 1-3-19^ and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. 4. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopa! 1 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96