'^3^g;^^^^^^gti^g^^^^l^S^S^^^^^^^^^s§@^£3^!^^^!'^^^^^? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILABPUR W.P. (81 No.7392 of 2007 PETITIONERS 1 Rohit Kximar Sahii aged 42 years, s/o Shri Shiv Charan Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primaiy School, Kiu-amatarai, Block and District Dhamtari(CG) 2. Jidliam Ram Sahu ^cd 48 yeais, s/o Shri Saiiwat Rana Sahu Assistaut Teacher, Govt. Priinary School, Mudpar, Block and District Dhamtari(CG) 3. Smt. Usha Jachak aged 44 ycars, w/o Shri Basant Rao Assistaat Teacher, Govt Prunaiy Schoo], Karefha, Btock and District Dhamtari(CG) 4. Siat, Sangceta DTikre aged 45 ycars, w/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Rao Assistaut Teacher, Govt. Oirls Priinary School, Dhanitola Block &, District Dhamtai-i(CG) 5. Toran Singh Sahu, agcd 45 years s/o Shri Guha Ram Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Sivard, Block and district Uhamtari(CGr) 6. Chetan Ram Netam aged 46 years, s/o Shri Ohasiys Ram Netain UTT Govt. Higher Sec. School, Amdi, Block aad District Dhamtad(CG) 7. Mohan Lal Sahu aged 51 years, s/o Shri Daya Ram Sahu, UDT Govt High Scbool, Nari, Block and District Dhamtari(CG) Versus 1 The Stete Gkivemtneat of Chhattisgarh, Thix>ugh fhe Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The District Rdiication Officer, Dliamtari(CG) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFS:N@SA Appearance: Sliri Soinkant Verma, counscl for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel I^awyer for fhe State on advance \ copy. RE8PONDENT8 •i-s-S»r^"'-W-fsS''!.,fllM 2^ WP(S) 7392/2007 ORAL ORDER {13.12.2007) SUMIL KUMAR SINHA. J Heard on adinission. Leamed couitsel for thc petitioncrs subtaits th.at tlic petitioners have passed D.Ent. examination on their own expenses, thereforc, they are entitled to receive two advance incmnents acconling to circulara dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999, He also subinits that in inany identical inatters, the petitjons have heen allowcd in tenns of fhe order passed in the case of yashuxoit jKumur Bharashatd Vs, SSuMifSfiaS. Corporatton, flurg and another /2006 OT MPJR-CG 96?. He submits that the case of fhe petitioners is squarely covered hy the said jiidgment. This legal position is not disputed by the leamed counsel for the State. However, she submifs that the orrier may bc passed in tenns ofthe said judginent, but it shatl be siihjectcd to verification regarding petitioners' such qiialification. Accordm^ty, fhis writ petition is a11owed in tenns of tlie order passe-d in case of Yashwant Kumar fiharadwaj Vs. Muruapal Corpwatiiwi, Ditrg and anothcr (Supra) subject to verification of the facts as to whefher the petitioners liari acquired D.Ed. Examin.ation Certificates on their own expenses as per cuiculars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and filrther whethcr they have Tieen paid two advance iiicrcnieTits or not. The pctitioii stands finally disposedjyOIojwderasJo costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sisiha Judge Sunita