in the Honble Hiflh Court of Clihattishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P. (S) No. (^§2^ 2006 Petitioner Smt. Neeta Chaoji, Aged 39 years W/0 Shri D.M. Chaoji, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Dabarapara, Bhilai-3,District, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Respondent... I.The State Government ofChhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) ^&d ^^^ eSS^ -: ' Cvt> Writ petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the natyre of IVIANDAMUS, Certiorari, Prohibition and other suitable WRIT or writs, Order or orders, Directio^n or direct\ons^ •- MSl^'o^ 2. The Bteck Education Officer, Durg (C.G) ^^^^yi&aywiSUtSSBRs XI-HC-78 *TT+I^ISh*l|ch 'ysi -'iwid'ii, ®Tn+i'i<s,Ricii^y "^f^^"^2-3/6^ j^..................... ^ 200 ^ CT^TT^? (yt^isi^eT) sn^T^R-ii* traran^rstiiii* ?T(iiwnf?a'3n^T 11.12.2006 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. G.A. for |e The petitloner is working as| School. in the course of her servicef, certificate at her own expenses before According to learned counsel fo\ two advance tncrements in view of thel Yashwant Kumar Bharadviai Vs. Ijor the petitioner. respondents/State. Asstetant Teaoher in Govemment the petltioner has obteined B.Ed. 1.3.1999. the petitioner, petitloner is entltled to decision of this Court !n the case of Municipal corooratlon. Bum »nd anoUier reDorted In 2006 (21 MPJR <- GG 86. This Coutt in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Mun| (supra), came to the concluslon th^t B.Ed./B.TI. Examination Certificate onl the circuiar dated 24.12.1998 issued Pradesh. Further in the matter of Smt Ntanorama Slwlvastava Vs. State <rf M.P. and others reoorted in 2000 rt Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench) 1.3.1999 wherein it is providaj that| acquired B.Ed. degree at their own shall be entitled to two advance increl case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava othere passed in Originai Application wherein it is observed that the cirouK applicable retrcspeotively. Thus, a teac has obtained B.Ed. degree before 1.fl increments. '*>i'!<Fci41-f *ii*ittTfftecfl'<Riw;i< ^?3ri^iT3n^?r cipal Corpor^ion, Duig and another |t the teachers, who had obtainecl itheir own e)q3enses, are covered by ty the State Govemment of Madhya MPLSR 136, the Madhya Pradesh while considering the circular dated the Asstetant Teachers who have co^t between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 incretnents, relied on Uie decision in the |Vs. Steite of Madhya Pradesh and Nb. 1632/1999 decided on 12.10.1999 r dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made (her may be Assistant Teacher, who .5.1999 is entftied to two ad\anoed P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *11*1^rTSb*TT^ 3^^MRPT, OTflu'ie, iqi'iwy ^^-CS^ fjo- 68-L3/°& ^ 200 3ll^<l 4a<B (yif^q^T) 3n^rwR-ii+ (rarsn^Tsb.tiIch ^ ?^irar ;Hf?cT 3n^?r qiiilci'ifl-i ii*i<iTfftei^)'<Ri«i< ^; 3ri^ir sn^r ' It is pointed cut by the tearnedl counsel appearing for the petitioner that the then State of Madhya Prade^h had filed a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribitinal and the Hon'bte Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition rflo. 1999COOO filed against the order of the tribunai. Therefore, the directior] 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable r^ becomes finat and the same shail to the efiect that the circular ctated rospectwely, passed by the Tribunal, be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers, who have obtained B.Ed./QTI certificates before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a cireular dat^d 17.10.2003 issued by the presait State of Madhya Pradesh wherein tljie cireular cleariy states about tte decision ofthe Hon'bie Supreme Court.[ Leamed counsel for the petitioijier further submits the* the facts and question of law invoived in the pres|ent case of petitioner are squarely covered by the decision of this Cwft In the case of Yashviant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) to which leatied coursel appearing for the respondent/State fairiy eoncedes and leamed counsel appearing for the petitij Accordingly, the writ petition i^ this Court in the matter ofYashwant Kt| of the fact as to whether the petitiCTieil agrees v^th the avemnerrts made by iner. ailowed in terms of the deciston trf lamr Bharadwaj subject to verificatlon has acquired B.Ed. certificate at her own expenses as per the oireular datec) 24.12,1998 and 1 .3.1999 and further whether she has beai paid two advan|se increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.