SS£ 5 S '"s :tS 3_^ &-^ »— fc S ^n? ^ 2 c •li3 0 In the Honble Hiqh Court of Chhattishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. ~733~3 2006 Petitioner Reseondent C?A'> :^M._. Brij Kishore Sharma Aged 39 years S/0 Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari, Head Master, Govt. Middle School,Pendri, District, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1 .The State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Seeretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) -2. The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /'/' ^V ^' Writ petition under articles 226 of the Constitution of ^f . 'v ^. '"dia for issuance of writ in the nature of IVIANDAIVIUS, ^ CertiprarL PrQhibitipn and pther syjtable WRIT or wrjts, Order or orders, Direction or directions. HjGK GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SlNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petittoner Respondents VWIT PETmON (S.l N0.7301 OF 2008 Smt. Prabha Thakur versus PeStioner Resoondents Petjtioner Respondents Petitiooer Resoondente PetitiQner Resoondents The State Govemment of Chhattisgarti and another WRrr pETrrioN (s.t N0.7302 OF 2006 Fakeer Singh Sahu versus The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETmON (S.) N0.7303 OF 2006 Hirendra Kumar Gajbhiye wreus State Govemment of Chhatfegarh and another vmrr PETITION (s.i N0.7304 OF zoos MojiRam Sahu vereus The State Govemment ofChhatttsgarh and another WRFT PETITION (S.l N0.7305 OF 2008 : LalitKumarPatel yersus State Govt. of ChhaUsgarh and ottiers T 1^1 / WRIT PETITtON (S.l N0.7306 OF 2006 Petitioner : Megh Ram Jaiswal versus Respondents : State Govt. of ChhatUsgarh and others WRIT PETmON (S.t N0.7307 OF 2006 Petitioner : Vishram Prasad Verma versiK Respondents State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WRFT pErmoN <s.i N0.7332 OF 2006 Bhagwat Lal Sahu vereus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another PeUtioner Resobndents WRIT PETmON fS.l N0.7333 OF 2006 Vishnu Ram Thakur yersus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRrr reTmoN <s.i N0.7334 OF 2006 PeUtioner : Salik Prasad Dwwedi vereus Respondents Petitioner Resoondents The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and another WRn- PETITION (S.1 N0.7335 OF 2006 Narendra Kumar Dewangan versus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh andanother - Petitfoner Respondents WRIT PETmON (S.l N0.7336 OF 2006 Smt. Prem Lata Tiwari versus Petitioner Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION fS.l N0.7337 OF 2006 Tlkam Lal Pisda versus Petitioner Respondents P^tioner ^T- Respondente Petjtioner Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRrr PETmON (S.l N0.7338 OF 2008 Jeewan Lal Sahu versus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION .t N0.7339 OF 2006 Smt. Vidhyawati Sahu versus The State Govemment ofChhatUsgarh and anottier WRFT PETITION (S.1 N0.7340 OF 2006 Mamta Jha versus Petitioner Respondents The State Govemment of ChhatUsgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.7341 OF 2006 Hira Lal Sahu vereus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh andanother - - __ ^ Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION fS.l N0.7342 OF 2006 Smt. Dhaleshari Thakur versys PelSBoner Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another wRn-pETmoN <s.i N0.7343 OF 200$ Narad Lat Arkane yersys The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another Petitfoner Respondents WRff PETITION {S.} N0.7344 OEZOOe Sushil Kumar Sharma yersys Petifioner Respondents The State Govemment of ChhatUsgarh and another WRIT PETmON (S.l N0.7345 OF 2006 Smt. Sarajana Tripathi versus The State Govemment of Chhattfegarh andanother PeUtioner Resoonctents WRn- PETITION fS.) N0.7346 OF 2006 Rohit Kumar Indoriya versus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION IS.} N0.7347 OF 2808 PetitiQner Shesh Narayan Sandil versus Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7348 OF 2( 6 PeBtioner Yogdas Sahu versus Respondente The State Govemment ofChhatUsgarh and another wprr pEm-ioN <s.) N0.7349 OF zooe PeBUoner Moredhwaj Sahu versus Respondente The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETmON (S.) N0.7350 OF 2006 'f- Petitioner Toman Lal Chandrakar versus Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRIT PETmON (S.t N0.7351 OF 2006 Petitioner Sharda Prasad Tiwarf versus Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another - —— —- ~ Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.7352 OF 2006 Smt.TaJinderGilt vereus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRFT PETITION IS.} N0.7353 OF 2008 Petrfioner : Paras Ram Sahu yersus Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another *•' Petftioner Respondents WRrr PETITION (S.) N0.7354 OF 2006 FeruRam Verma versus PeBUoner Respondents The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRFT pETmoN (s.i N0.7355 OF 2006 Smt. Kirti Shrivastava vereys The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another Pefitioner Respondents WRrr PETITION {S.} N0.7356 OF 2008 Snrt. Lafita Dewangan versiB The Stat®Govemment of Chhattisgarti and another '-\ ^ Petifloner Resoondents WRrr PETITION fS.) N0.7357 OF2006 Smt. Chawant Deshmukh versus The State Govemment ofChhattisgarh and another WRrr pErmoN (s.i NO.TSCT OF zoos Petjtioner Resoondents vereus Ramhan Dss Sahu The State Govemment ofChhatflsgarh and another And wrar pErmoN (s.i N0.7359 OF zoos Petitioner Respondents yereys Brij Kishore Sharma The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and another Pr^ent : Mr. Ajay Shrtwstava, Mr. Somkant Verma, counsel for the petiUoner(s). Ms. Sunita Jain, Panef Lawyerfor ttie State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 4B1 Day of January, 2007) Leamed counset appearing for the petitionere as a(so for the State/respondents jointly subnwt that the facts and questlon of taw invoh/ed in the present bateh of writ petltions are squarefy covered by th®decision of this Court in e case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaf vs. Uuniclpat CorporaOon, Durg andanotheis . 2. In subsequent cases, i.e., Wrtt Petitton (5.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Venna vs. The State Govt. of Chhatttsgarti anii amMiei) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1^5, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in Educatkm Examination, it was ctarified that Uie nomencfature of fte Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly. the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decfeion in Wrtt Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kwnar Vemia vs. The State Govt. ofCfthaffisgarf? affdanerihef) (Supra). 3. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petiUons are disposed of in terms of the decfsion of thte Court iri the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the pefiSoners have acquirecf B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at Bieir own expenses as per Vhe circulars dated 24-12- 1998 and 1^-1^9 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No orcler as to costs. 4. A copy of thls order be placed on the record of the connected writ petWons. —^ - _ Subhash 1 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 2, tn subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Sopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh and anoffiet) and other connected mattere, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pureuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by th® Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diptoma in Educatton ExaminaUon, it was clarified that the nomencteture of the Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.T.I. has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Educatlon, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly. the D.Ed. Certificate holders are atso covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Vemia vs. The Sfefe Govf. af ChhaWsgaifi and anaSw^ (Supra). 3. For the aforemenfloned reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court fn the matter of Yastwant Kumar Bhatadwsy' (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether ttre petitioners have acqurred B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24-12- 1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance incremente or not. No order as to cosls. 4. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petih'ons. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Subhash 1 2006 Ql) MPJR-CG 96