C^^tnri_ ^ BEFORETME HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHMATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIt PETITION fSyNO. ^ft^ ^2010 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIQNER ^••^,/ •^ ^J\* .^3..' <?<<"^-"' '^•••" yv ,A^"'^-^ .^°%@ ^^s^ '^^^ ~\y RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3.' 4. l^ Smt. Ignosia Khalkho (Before marriage Ignosia Minj), aged about 45 years, wife of Shri P. Khalkho, occupation - Asst. Teacher, presently working as Head Master, Govt. Middle School - Sakti, Stationpara - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department pf School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Rajpur (C.G.) District Education Officer, District— Janjgir-Champa (CG) Joint Director (Treasury, A/c & Pension), Bilaspur (CG) Block EducatiQn Offieer, Block - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (GG) Ht*.'"" ^ ^s^ ^ 'sss <Hl4!(l WI !<-1J+ ^V STT^T sh^i^? 'S^St '<il<<IW';T, ®Tli<J'IS,rqc1)-My,< W.^,($)(^.'-\(»l?|^ sn^I T^^ ('ja^ti^) 6«llW:HftCT 3II^?T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Stl 18-08-2010 Shri Tarun Dansena, counsel forlthe Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyerforj Heard. Learned counsel appearing for t|e entitled to benefit of hvo advance increjnents B. Ed. examinatjon before her appointni the issue involved in the present petitio| has been finally decided by the Hon't Saxena vs. State of M.P. & Ors^ submitted that this Court has also ta| 06-07-2010 passed in W.P.(S)No.3250 On theother hand, submission State is that this petition has been filed 4 Government. He prays ttiat ifthe petitionjer will be considered on ite own merits andl 'ble In this view ofthe matter, 1 am n4 stage. It would be open for the petition^i making appropriate representation, olai^ing orders referred to above. In case such r4 decidethesame in accordance with law.| With the aforesaid observations, qOTfepfrT iWRff <fft^ TfW?R iTsifimsn^; rivastava.J. petitioner. [the State/respondents on advance copy. petitioner submjts that the petitioner is on account of she having passed ient at her own cost. It is submitted ftat h is no.longer res infegi'a and the same Supreme Court in the case of Asha ^009 m MPJR (SC) 59. It is further ken a similar view in his order dated 4f2010. pi learned counsel for the respondents- (fithout making anyapproach to the State njer would make representation, the same |n accordance with law. it inclined to entertain this petition at this r to approach the State Government by parity of treatment on the basis of •presentation is made, respondents shall he pet'tion standsdisposed of. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava — ^ Judge «mf\4(Isflfl lii;"llrti!,:n3T<?IR —FS?rt7—2/2010—1,00,000.