/< c^O *-(si--^i.j: ^S-s'S'^^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTtSGARH PETITIONER •$r ^^ te.-<'(S:'-'Y ..••'' '° .''l*-SS?'* 4(§^ ..••<.<J:S^ <^yi \.y ^•y^^9 ,<tts^"' ^ESPONDENT W. P.(S). N0. 5^'^/2006 Anuj Ram Sahu^ S/o Shri Prem Lal Sahu Ageabout44years, Village- Baktara, Post-Kendri Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. .^' ^<^ ^^ ^ptk'' ^\ G^ 2. StateGovt.ofChhattisgarh ^ Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) District Education Officer • Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRTLPETLTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ ^ HKH COURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : Meghonath yudav Versus Stute 6ovt. of Chharttwgarh A anolher W. P.(S)No. 5636 of 2006 fityndhar Prasad Sohu Respondents Ptetittoner : Versus Respomients : Statefiovt.ofCWiattisgarhAano'ther W. P.fSlNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner ; Ramaahantar Supta Versus Respandenta : Stxrtefiovt.ofChhattisgnrhAano'ther W. P.fSiNo. 5638 of 2006 Ptetitioner » ; Teekam Lal Sinha Versus Reapondcnts : Stute 6ovt. of Chhuttiagarh A anolhcr W. P. fS) No. 5639 of 2006 Pktitioner : Smt.SunitaPa) Versus Ruponduits : St«rt»6ovt.ofChhffttisggrhAano1h«r W. P.fSlMo. 5640 of 2006 Petitkmer : Mohboob Khan Quraishi Veraus Starte 6ovt. of Chhattiagorh Aano'ther W. P.rSONo. 5641 of 2006 : Smt. JagesNnri Bhcgel Respondents RBtitioner : Weraus Respondwrts : Stut«6wt.ofChhattjagarhAarwthw W. P./SINB. 8642 of 2006 Petitioner : Tutendra Kumnr Tniuri Versus Reapondents : Stute 6ovt. of Chhattisgcrh A arwthw W. P. fS) No. S643 of 2006 Petitioner : Ramavtar yadawa Wenus Re^pondents ; Stetefiovt.ofChhatt^nrhAdmrthin^ ^L^^^5^^ ^&i^UtK&t^ftffHA woriiW°nTmwBra U&tft33^c^ l^ (2-^ Petitioner Reapondents Retitioner Respondcnts Pktitioner Bespondents Petitioner Rcspondents Petitioner Respondurits Retitwner Reapondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondents Petitioner Resuondents W. P. fSi No. 5644 of 8)06 : Anyj Ram Sahu Veraw : Shrtc 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh AawHw W. P.fSiNo. 5646 of 2006 : Rayendni Kuniar 6up*a Versus : Stiateeovt.ofCWKrttJagarhdanolher W. P.fSlNo. 5647 of 2006 : Sharad Tiinri Veraus : Statefiovt.ofChhattisyffhAanother W. P.fStNo. 5648 of 2006 : AUwndruPreMadShukla Versus : Slate6i>vt.ofChhatM<9B»+Aawth»' W. P.fStNo. 5673 of 2006 : fiunbhaoahan 5ahu Versus ; State 6wt. of Chhattiagnrh A anolhw W. P.fSlNo. 5674 of 2006 : Snt. Jaya Tifuri Vleraus : Sta*B6ovt.ofChhattia9«rhAano-thcr W. P.fSiNo. 5675 of 2006 Tuka Rnm Chandndtor Verau Storte 6ovt. of ChhatMa9arh A arwther W. P. {a No. 5676 of 2006 : Rameah ftimar Vernia Verais : Statefiovt.ofChhatMsgnrhAono-ther And W.P.f5lNo.5677ofa)06 Versus UianaByRBtel Stute 6wt.cf Chhattisaarh Auaolhcr lagur ^&' Sii^to Bmch: Hon'ble Mr. Jvatm Satteh K. AgrihoM. Shri Ajay Shrivustam, Advocatc for Ihe Petitioners. 5mt. Aiju Ahuja, Dy. 6ovt. Ac^ocate for Itw reapondenta/Stut*. OROER (26tk October. 2006) 1. Leamed counsel appearin9 for the petitioners aubmrts that fhite workin9 ns Asastant TcnchenyUpper Owision TeauherayLeehirers, ihs petitioners hcwe gone on ^rwniny to improve •their qualificationa on •their oNn exptiaes and acquired B. EdVB.TJ Examination Certificote. 3. The present writ petitwna, bcing WJ*^?) Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006, 5637/2006, 5638/2006. 8639/Z006. 8640/2006. 5641/2006, 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006. 5646/2006, 5647/2006. 5648/2006, 5673/2006; 5674/2006,0675/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 inwlw aimilnr fncts and common question of law. Thus, •these petitwns nre bcing diaposed of by •this common order. According to learned counael f<r the petitionera, Ihe petitiuners are entitled to twu adwnce inerements in vier of Ihe deciswn of Ihis Court in Ihc caae of yaahunnt Kuincr Bwrudtiuy Vs. Atunicipal Corporation, Durg and anolher (2006 CEE) MPJK-C6 96}. This Court in Ihe cnse of ycahwan* Kumar Bharodwuy Va. Municipul Corporution, Durg and nnoltw 4 ^h^ (5upra), come to 1he amchiajon •that' •the teachu's, who had obtoined B.Ed./B.TJ. Examinntion Cerfificute on his own wqxnscs, are covered by •(he drcukr tlatwl 24.12.9Q issued by Ihe Starte fiwemment of Madhyn Pradeah. 4. Leurned counsel for Ihe petitioners furthcr subnuta •that Ihe focts and question of hn» inwlwed in 1h« preaent casu are squarely covered by decision of •this Court' in 'the caae of Yaahinnt Kunwr HiaradiKy Vs. Municipal Corporation, Ourg and onolher (Supra), *o which leamed coun»lcppuirirg for •the respondehts fnirly conoeetes and ayrwes wi'th the awmicnt mnde by teamed counsel cppearing for Ihe priitioners. 5. Accordingly, •the writ petMions are ollowed in terms of Ihc ordcr passed in •the case of yaah«»ontKumnr Biurudw^j Vs. KAunicipal Corpcnrtion, Durg and anolher (Supra), aubject *B vrification of 1he fact aa to Nhether thc petitioners haw ocquired B. EcL/B.TJ. &iinminatJ«i Cwtificarte on 'rtNBir odn expenacs or not. No order as to casts. 6. A copy of Ihis onter be plaaul on record of o'ther connectcd «witpetjtwns. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu