Z (’Qa‘a,” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. (“74‘ /200§ (813.) PETITIONER ( 1M éb/V $wv_shankar Naamdev, S/o Shri L L> Naamdev ag€d about 41 years R/o Flranglpara, Kota, Bilaspur (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 2260F THE Stats of Chhattisgarh , Through Secretary , Education Department , D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Director of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) District Education 0&061” Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA HL’5H COURT OF CHHATTIEGARH AT §ILA5PUR w. P. (s) No. 1074 of 260; Pe+§“i'ionar' : Shivshankar‘ Naamdev Versus Raspanderrrs S'i‘a‘fe sf Chha‘H’isgarh & s‘thers Singie Bench: Hon’bie Mr‘. Jus'i'ice Saiish K. Agnihofri. Mr. Kumcxresh Tiwari, Advaca‘re for the pefitioner. 5m: Anju Ahuja, Depui‘y Govern-men? Advocm‘e far The 51‘a1re/respondem‘s. 0 R D E R (Passed on fhis 26” Day of February, 2007) Learnw counsel appearing 'For' “the pefifioner submi'rs Tha‘r 1*he p'e-i‘i'i'iorier- is warking as Assismn‘f Teather/Lzcfurer. The pei‘i‘i’ianer ob'mined B. E. Examina'fion cer’i’ificufe an 14-7-1992, an his awn d expensas. Learned caunsei appeariag for fhe pe’rii’ianer submHs fha'f ‘H‘Ie ques?ian invalved, herein as‘i’a whe‘fhei“ fhe Teacher, who ab‘mined B. Ea'. Examirm‘fion Cer'ri‘fica‘l'e an his awn expenses is en‘l'i'fled fa 'i'wa aavance increme'rafs. Accordi‘ag +a learned caunsei for 'rhe pefi‘riarser, ‘the pe'ri'fioner is airfi'fled To Two advance increments in View of The decision of i‘his Cour-r in The m4? of Vashwan'i' Kuman Bhamawaj Vs. hiunicipal Connora‘i’ian, burg and arm-her {2006 (I1) MPJR-CIS 96}. This Cour? in 'i'he case oi Yashwan‘i' Kumar Bhamewa‘j Vs. Municipal Carpami'iah, Burg and anoiher' (Supra), came “fa 1‘he conclusion 'l'ha'r ‘ihe ieacher's, / \ who had obitined B. Ed. /B.T.I. Examim‘fion Cerfificme on fheir own expenses, are covered by The circuiur da'fed 24.12.98 issued by fhe 5fa‘te Governmeni’ of Mudhya Pmdesh. lmrned coutise‘ for 1‘he pe’l’i’l’ioner fur'l'her submi‘ts 'l'hai' 'I'he fac?s anti quesfien of law involved in fhe preseni' case are squarely covered by decision of fhis Cour? in fhe case of Yashwam' Kumor Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipal Corporafion, Burg and another- (Supro), fo which iearned counsel appearing for ‘fhe respoodenfs fairly concedes and agrees wi?h The aver-men? mode by {earned counsel appearing for the pe‘l'ifioner. Accordingly, me wrii pe‘ii‘l'ion is allowed in Terms of ihe order passed in iiie case of Vashwan‘i Kurnar Bharadwaj Vs. niunicipal Corpamiion, Dung and moi-her (Supra), subjeci To verifica'rion of i‘ne faci as +0 whel’her ’rhe pe'i’i‘lioner has acquired B. Ed. Exomina‘l'ion Ceriifica’i’e on his own expenses as per ihe circulars dared 24.12.1998 (3: 1.319% and furl‘ner whei‘ner he has been paid ‘i'wo advance incremenis or not No order as ‘io cosis. A l l l sm- l Satish K. Agnihetri l i Judge