a-z^^- RPM^u •»'»««U5.CiStj^KH IN THE HON'BLEJIIGH^OURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. ^- ^2--/2010 PETITIONERS .-^ -- 1^^.. ^y./ k>^f /;iCL?V ^^ '.^-f 1. Onkar Singh Dhruv, S/o Shri Bhuvendra • Singh, aged about 45 years, Head Master, Primary School, Maugaon, Block Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Surendrachandra Baghel, S/o Ghasi Ram Baghel, aged about 45 years, Head Master, Primary School, Rohnaguda, Block- Devbhog, District Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Prem Kumar Nagesh, S/o. Shri Sadhu Ram, aged about 38 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Chigara Bhata, Block Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chhabal Ram Durga, S/o Shri Kushbo Ram, aged about 44 years, Head Master, Primary School, Jaamgaon, Block Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5. Sampurna Ram Patra, Bhopal Chandra Patra, -r t. SIS ^t^:^-T' RESPONDENTS aged about 38 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Kurlapara, Block Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6. Jogeshwar Nagesh, S/o Shri Chakradhar Nagesh, aged about 42 years, Head Master, Primary School Barkashi, Block Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 7. Puranchandra Singh, S/o Shri Parmeshwar Singh, aged about 43 years, Head Master, Primaiy School, Gangrajpur, Block Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1 V 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education officer, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development, Department, Raipur (C.G.) (Sr 4. Block Education Officer, Block Devbhog, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. '-HC—78 sn^s •ssf R-fi+ vn sy^v stiii'* <iWW g»*tl<*> 3-=[ «41'41^1<1, ^flly'Ko, [s|diyi< ^-^....y^.L;>^...0^:....sn 200 Sn^T'q^T ('^3^'^) TOiiwafwsii^i SB_: HON'BLE.MR^JIJSTICS PRlflNKBR DIWAKBR 09.09.2010 Shri Rakesh Anthony, cound' Smt. Smita Ghai, P.L. for tht Grievance of the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teaci-| examination at thelr own exaent oetitioners have not been grantf dated24.12.1998. Counsel for the oetitioners of law involved in the present pel decision of this Court in the mattl Vs. Municlpal Corporatioa, Dur^ 9S 8s the petitioners are aiso erj circular dated 24.12.98. This fact is not disputed by In view of above, the petiti|3i decision of this Court in the matt.sl fsupra), sussject to verification of th have acquired B.Ed/D.Ed certifica{ circulars dated 24.12.98 and furtbe: two advance increments or not. 41'l|l<,-l<ft-i Hitlffl '? 'fST3> <Fal^K '^affimsii^i [ei i'or the petitioners. I; State. |in the present petition :s thaithey [ers, they have passed B.E.d/D.Ed. ;es clunng service, nowever, tne |1 tv.'o increments as per circuiar iubmits that the facts and auestion tition are squareiy covered by the |;r of Yashwant Kainar BharadroaJ 8s Another, 200S (II) MPJR-CG [titled fbr two increments as oer jhe State counsel. bn is disoosed of in terms of the [r of Yashwaat Kuinar Bharadwaj tacfc as ^o whettier the petitionsrs je at their own expenses as per the her whefher thev have been paid Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge ^ ^