tllvrtt iHp ^S-IF? ^<Timf A '~n'T!TC<.-r^ ,.1, i^i? ^TfT^.J^ i. I. l.^l^x^ •T IT RIT PETITION (S) No. RESPONDENT Kr.st/i testt. Janjgir-Cham] Manoj K.umar Kewart, S/o. Late Naresh Kumar Kewart, Aged aboirt 36 years, A^ssistant Teacher, Govl. Primaiv sctiool. Tendiibhata, Bloc.k Nawagarh, Distt. (C.G.) !TT< y IL'i'^^^ : 1. State of Chliattisgarli, Througli the Secretan'', Education Department D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Districf Educatioii OfEcer, Distriet Janigir-Champa (C.G.) ?~T11 t-^1 t T~i t 3. The Block Education OfEcer, BSocfc Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa. fr^ f^. (C.U.t WRTT_PETmON UNDERARTICLE_226 QF THE CONSTITITTION OF INDIA HON'BLE JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Preseat: t- Shri Maaoj Mishra, A-dvocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lav.'yer for the State / n •TtDnB (Passed on 20!}1 day ofApnl, 2007) Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner as well as for 'tfae Statc/'respondents joiiitly submit that the fac.t and question of !a'w mvolved in the present writ petition are the same to tliat of in Yashwant Kumar Vs. Musricipa! Corporation, and (II) MPJR-CG 96], which has bseii .-!;< di@»osed of vide order 03.04.2006. Learned couasel appeariag for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. In subsequeirt cases, i.e., Wrif Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh J'er'na ~vs. Tlie Govt. of itnofher) and ofher connected matters, decided by tfais Court 011 15- ^ ¥- 3. 12-2006, pursuant to the memo 28-1-1995, issued by tlie Secre'taty, Board of Secondary Educatioa, Bliopal and flie prospec.tas of Diploma in Education Examination, it was c.1arified that the nomenclatare of tfie Basic Trainmg Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has beea clianged and reaamed as Diploma ia Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, tfae D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decision t-a Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 Kiimar Vernw vs. The State Govt. of Chlwttisga.rh snd anather) (Supra). Accordmgly, the writ petition is atlowed in terms of the order lassed in the case of Yashwani: Kmnar Bharadwai Vs. Minricipal Corporation, Durg (Supra), subject to verificatioa ofthe fact as to ivhether tfie petitiorier faas accfiiired D.Ed. Exaimnation Certificate on lus own expenses as per tSie circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and farther whether he has been paid two advance incremeirts or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agniliotri Judge Siitihash