HJGH COURT OFCHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3926 of2007 a Versus 1) 2) 3) Madhav Prasad Choudhary, S/o. Dharam Singh Choudhary, Aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher Govt. Primary School, Khokhra, Biock - Pussoure, Districi - Raigarh (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, throuah the Secretary, Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (CG). The Biock Education Officer, Block Pussour, Dlstrict - Raigarh (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sstish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Sanjay Patei, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. 1. (Passed on 11th Juiy, 2007] Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner as wel! as for the State/respondents jointiy submit that the fact and question of iaw invoived in ihe oresent writ oetition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municspal Corporation, Durg and another { 2006 (il) MPJR -CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 3-4-2006. Learned counsei appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. s 2. In subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S) No. 4139 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenciature ofthe Basic Training institute i.e., B.T.!., has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certificate hoiders are aiso covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allov/ed in terms of the order passed jn t'ne case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another (supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on his own expenses as per the circulars daied 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order astocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge