n . r ' QO IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. ~^/$"J- OF 2011 PETITIONER \^.-w' ^.svr^" t^,0- •.\i-i ..< l^ '¥<" ^s,v' .-•''. ;;.y>-^ ^*''J^ RESPONDENTS Pratap Singh Porte, S/o Hardev Singh Porte, aged about 49 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary Schooi, Chechandi, P.0. Nawadeeh, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilsapur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G Deputy Director, Instructions, Education Bilaspur (C.G.) District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WmT_PET!TIQN_UNDERARTICLE226_OF_THE_CQNSTITUTION_OF INDIA Public SB : HON'BLE; S£R.JUSTICB PRITINKESR DIWAKER versus Pratap Singh Porte State of Chiiattisgarh Qthers Shji P.P.Sahu, counsel for fh.e petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fae Stete. (01.12.201 lj Tbe petitioaer, who was appointed on th.e post of Assistant Teacb.er uader the School Education DepartnieQt in. ye.ar 1995 is aggrieved by fh,e acuon of the respoiidents is not addiag two advsnce iacreiuents in his salarv even though he did his D.Ed. from Madhyamik Stuksha Maadal, Bhopal at his own cost in fhe year 1998-99 after seeki&g peiTuission for fhe sam.e froiu fhe departuient Couiisel for ftte petitioner subiaits that fhc petitioner is entifled for two advaace uicreiiieiits as he had obtain.ed D.Ed ExaiaiuatioD. certt&cate, in. accordance wifh the provisicns of Circular dated 24.12.98 aud ia view ofthe judgments of HonTile Supreiiie Court in fhe matter of State ofX.P. & Anather Vs. 3tidrinttrsiya.n Achdrya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashweiiit Kwmia.r SharSwsg Vs. Munieipcti Corporatlon, Durg and a.n.other reported iu 2006 (Of SSPJK 96 (CG). Oa fhe ofher hand, counsel for the State subinits fhat erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 aCowed advance iacreiiients onlv to those goveminent servaiits who ,proceeded for traiaiag up to 22. 10.1964 whefh.er at his own cost or at £h.e govemiaent cost. However, who proceeded on tramiag on or after 23.10.1964 can get two aanual increinents oaly if tlie traiuuig is at his cost aad not at fhe cost offhe Goverruaent. This circular ofdated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. Tiie Govemm.eu.t vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Services' -V Recruitoient and Promotion Rules, 1993 added quaUfication of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advauce iEicrenients only m. fhe condition that he had obteined his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.E. degree at his own. cost during service after obtaining permission fonn the deoartnient betsveen 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarifi7 ftie above position, circulars have ah-ead}' been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. , Facts, a.s detailed above; are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussin^ fhe circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad relyiag upon fhe judgment of fhe HonTsle Apex Court in fh.e inatter of Badriaarayan Achai5ra's case (supra) has held fhat teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to tavo advaace iacrenients on obtainiag B.Ed exaDiination certificate after 22.10.1964. as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer tunit of fhe period of obtaming B.Ed, M.Ed 85 B.T.I. certi&cate. It has been. fLirther held that circular dated 1,3.99 is applicable to only Assistaat Teachers (LD'n aad not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly subinits that principle of law laid down in Yashwaat Kuiaar Bharadwajs case (supiai.has attained iitiaSity asd case of fh.e petitioaer in fhis peti.tion is also squarely covered by the above judgruent as also circular dated 24.12.1998. For fhe aforesaid reasons, ftie petitioner is entitled to fhe payinent of two advance increiiients froxa tiie date of declaration of fhe petitioner's D.Ed. exanunation result. The respondents are accordingly directed to inake paynient of tavo advance iaciEinents to fhe petitioner from. tlie date ofhis passiag D.Ed. exaniniatioii, within a period of foixr iaont3is froiu today. However, fhis order shaU be subject to ail verifications inade by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. ';— No order as to costs. Sti/- Pritinker Diwakei; -.Judge f