*WN‘“" Hi$H COURT OF CHHATT5$$§RW "“ ""' “"5”“ BiLAsPUR Writ Petition (Si No. 867 of 2008 Pgtitioner Shashikant Singh, son of Shri Ram Sewak Singh, aged about 39 years, Assistant Teacher: Govt. Nagar, wade Schcoi, Namnakafa, Ambikapur, Ring residence Read, Ambikapur, of Rajeev District Ambikapur (Sarguja), Chhamsgarh. Versus Resgondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Bhawan, School Education Raipur, Chhatssgarh Department Ministry, D.K.S. 2) The District Eduction Qmcer, Ambikapur, District Ambikapur (Sargu}a), Chhattisgarh, 3) The Etock Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Ambikapur (Sarguja), Chhattisgarh. 4} District Principai, Ambikapur Govt‘ (Sarguja) Middie Schoci, Chhattisgarh. ‘Ambikapur, (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or india) 3B: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri C. JayantRao, counseiforthe petitioner. Smt. Binu $harma, Panei La_\ILIyer for the State. Present: WRAL GRDER (Passed on 1i“. Febroary, 2098) Learned counsei appearing for the befitioner as weii as for the 4. tate/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law invoiveo in the present writ petition are the some to that of in ‘r'ashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another {2003 (ii; MPJR -GG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 34-2006. Learned counsei appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 2) in subsequent cases, i.e,, Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 {Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgsrh and another) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on i5d2-20D6, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1 ~‘i s95, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was ciarified that the m @ . nomenciature of the Basic Training institute Le.) BIL, has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, La, DEd. Accordingw, the DEd. Certificate holders are aiso covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The state Govt. of Chhattisgarh and anothei' (supra). 3) Accordingiy, ihe writ petition is aiiowed in terme of the ora’er passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipai ¢orporatiom Durg and another (supra), subject t9 verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has dated 2442-1 Q98 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not No order as to costs. Sd/— . Satish K. Agnihotn Judge »rat U2,” ‘"JIV. J