^. ^|0(1^ Petitioners Respondents COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: SILASPUR Writ Petstlon i'SI 3Sio. 415 of 2008 1) Dwas Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Pusau Rarn Sahu, Age about 50 years, AsstS. Teacher, Govt. Middie School, Bhatasorhi, Block Berta, Distt. Durg (CG). 2) Paitan Ram Sahu, S/o. Late Shri Sant Ram Sahu, Age about 47 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi, Ghotmarra, Biock Beria, Distt. Durg, 3) Ku. Mridula Gupta, D/o. Shri Mani Lal Gupta, Age about 48 years, AsstS. Teacher, Govt. Primar/ Schooi, IVIauhabhata, 31ock Saja, Distt. Durg Versus 1) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, through Secretapy', Education & Triba! Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CQ). 2) District Education Officer, Bemetara, Dlstt. Durg (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 228 ofthe Constitution of India) SS: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counse! forthe petitioners. Smt. Binu Sharma, Panei Lawyer forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22ndJanuary, 1. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fsct and question of law involved in the present writ petitlon are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa] Vs. Municlpai Corporsition, Durg and another {2006 (Si) IVSPJR -CG 96), which has been disposed of vide order dated 3-4-2006. -SL- Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the sald submission. In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petitlon (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kymar Verma Vs. The State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected matlers, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Educatlon, Bhopai and the prospectus of Dipioma in Education Examinatlon, It was cianfied that the nomenciature of the Baslc Training institute i.e., B.T.I., has been changed and renamed as Diplonia in Educatlon, i.e., D.Ed. Accordlngly, the D.Ed. Certlficate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petitlon (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Govt of Chhattlsgarh and another (sypra'l Accordlngiy, the writ petition is allowed In terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharsdwaj Vs. Munidpal Corporatlon, Durg and another (supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired D.Ed. Examination Certlficate on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24-12-1988 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge