~?r M *n Bancl ,AMy" .o'.&CS"' .).-'•" ^S^T ^..-•••"" CFlo^ &avfe['(lie Hon'ble Hieh Court of Judicature of Chhattissarh at BUaspur (C.G.) W.KNO. ^ 69 2006 f- Petitioner Respondents Motilal Sahu, aged 51 years,/' Son of Sh'i Khorbahraram Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Haaoda, Tahsil & Dista-ict Durg (C.G.) VERSUS -1. The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh, ^ Through - The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Ministoy, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2, District Education OfEcer, Durg . 3. Block Education Officer,^^^ DistrictDurg (C.G.) ^*-- WritPetition Under Articles 226/227 of The Constitution Oflndia for the issuance of WR1T in the nature ofMANDAMUS certiorari, Prohibition and for other suitable writ or writs, order or orders. direction or directions. The petitioner most respectfully fumishes' the particulars ofthe writ petition as under: - »•• HI©HCOURT QF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner '. P. (s) No. 5069 of 2006 Motih! Sahu ^"_ The State Sovernment of Chhattisgarh &others "l. Sirgis Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Retitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Sovt. Advocate for the respondents/State. OR&ER >th (18th September, 2006) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner subroits that while workin9 as Assistcnt Teacher, the petitioner has gone on training to improve his qualifications on his own expenses ond acquired B.T.I. Examination Cert'ificate in the year 1992 from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, AAadhya Pradesh, 2. According to learned counsel for tiie petitioner, the petitioner is entit!ed to two advance increments in view of the decision of this Court- in the cass of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Ourg ond another {2006 (II) MPJR-C6 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. AAunicipa! Corporation, burg and another (Supra), came to the conctusion that the teachers, who had obtained B.T.I. .l1-, Examination Certificote on his own expenses, are covered by the circuhr dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/2) issued by the State Sovernment of Madhya Pradesh 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits tiiat the facts and question of law involved in the present ccise are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharodwaj Vs. Municipa! Corporation, t)urg and another (Supra), to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counsel appearlng for the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. AAunicipal Corporation, Durg and anothsr (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. Examination Certificate on his own expenses or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agmhom Judge Thakur :;=?s^a'».S Bl^^S^%g;®;^^t^S'l'^?SS'K:^'!?;'-a'