'i R <?3. f?" <"^ f^o/— IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR PETITIONER .^:^T / 4^;<^^ ^^s^^ .^/^!':b,- ......;-^^ \\ •<'-?t' A^" RESPONDENT CHHATTISGARH W. P.(S). NO.^"6^'12006 Meghanath Yadav/^ S/o Shri Mishri Lal Yadav Age about45 years, Village- Kopara Post-Kopara Tehsil - Rajim Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh^ Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer /^ Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner most humbly submits as under:- (S) yy~ HT6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT KELASPUR ^W. P. f5) No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : Megharwth Yadoy Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of CWwttisgarh & cnother W.P.(9hto.5636of2006 Petitioner : Soijachar Prasnd 5ohu Verais Respondents : Stnte 6ovt. of Oihattisgarh & ono-ther W. P.fSlNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner : RaBKXhankar Supta Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A onother W. P.ONo. 5638 of 2006 \^ Petitioner : Teekam Lal Smha Versus Respondents : State Sovt. of Chhatt<S9arh A anolhcr ^W.P. fS) No. 5639 of 2006 Petitioner : Smt. 5unita PoJ Verais Respondents : Stort-e 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A onother W. P.fSlNo. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner : Atohboob Khun Quraishi Versus Req>ondents : State 6ovt. of ChhottiS9arh A arwther W.P.(aNo.5641of2006 PetHioner : Smt. Jagea»BfiHiagel Wersus Respondcnts : Stute 6ovt. of Chturttisgarh A anolher W. P. (S) No. 5642 of 2006 Petitioner : Tulentfra Kunwr Tnwri Versus Respondents : Stnte 6ovt. ofChhattisgarh Aano-ther W. P. fS)No.5643 of 2006 Petitwner : Ranwylar Yaduwt Versus Respondents : Sftrt®Sovt. of Chhattiagarh A antrther Petitwner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondwits Petitioner Rcspondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petjtioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W. P.fSlNo. 5644 of 2006 : Anuj Ram Sahu Versus : State 6uvt. of CWtert+isgurh A ano-ther W. P.fS)No. 5646 of 2006 Rfljenek-a Kumar fiupta Versus : State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh d cawlher W. P.fS^No. 5647 of 2006 : Sharud TiWBri Versus : State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A another W.P.faNo.5648of2006 : AAahendraPrasndShukla Versus : Stute 6wt. of Chhatt-isgurh A another W. P. (S) No. 5673 of 2006 : fiunbhooshm Sohu Versus State 6uvt. of Chhattisg<»hA awther W.P.f5^No.5674ofa)06 Smt. Jaya Tiwari Versus : Stute 6ovt. of Chtettisgorh d another W.P.fSlNo. 5675 of 2006 Tuka Rnm Chandpnkar Versus Storte 6ovt. of OihattiS9arh A ano-riter W. P.faNo. 5676 of 2006 Ramesh Kumar Verma Versus State 6ovt. of Oihattisgarh & orwther And W.P.fSVNo.5677ofZ006 Versus DhansayRatel State 6<wt. of CMiuttis9arh A ano'rtier Single Bmwh; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satiah K. AgrihaM. 5hri Ajay Shrivustavu, Advocate for the Petitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, t)y. 6ovt. Advocate for Ihe resfwndents/State. OR&ER (26th Ortober, 2006) 1. Leamed coimsel oppewmg for Ihe petitioners submits thut while wopkmg as Assislunt TeachersA^pper Owision TeachersAjechirers, •the petitioners hcwe gone on tnxinjn9 to inyrove •their qualifications on •their o«me»penaesandacquired B. EdYB.TJ Examination Certrficute. Jhe present «wit petitwns, bemg WJ*.(S) Nos. 563S/2006, 5636/Z006, 5637/2006, 5638/2006, 5639/2006. 5640/2006. 5641/2006, 5642/2006. 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006. 5647/2006, 5648/2006, 5673/2006.5674/2006, 56^/2006. 5676/2006 ond 5677/2006 involve similar facts and common question of law. Thus, these petitions are being disposed of by •this conunon order. According to teamed counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to •hiw adwncs increments in viet»ef •the decisimi of •this Court in Ihe case of Yashwnnt Kumur Hiarodwoij Vs. AAunicyal Corporation, Durg ond another {2006 01) MPJR-C6 96}. This Court in 1he case of yashwant Kunidr Bharodtwj Vs. Munidfxd Corporation, Durg and onolher (5upra), came *o llie conclusion Ihat Ihe teaGhers, who had obtnmed B.Ed./B.TJ. Examination Certificate on his ocn e?q)enses, are cmered by the circular datcd 24.12.98 issued by •the Storte Sovemmwit of Madhya Prndesh. 4. Leumed counsel for -the petitioners further aibmits •that •Ihe focts and question of laiii inmlved 'n thc present cases are sqwrdy covered by deasmn of Ihis Court in Ihe case of yadiuunt Kumar KiaradNwj Vs. <Aunic4)at Corporation, Durg and ano-ther (Supro), to which teamed counsel appua'mg for •the respondents fairty concedes wid agrees wwth the cawrment made by leamed counset oppearhig for the petitioners. 5. Accordmgly, the tn-it petitions are allofed m terms of Ihe order passed m •the case of yeBh—nntKuniar Bharaohiiuj Vs. Municiptrf Corporartion, Our9 and orwther (Supra), aibjcct te varification of -the fact as to -helher Ihe petitioners have acquired B. Ed7B.TJ. Ewuninortian Ctrtificate on thejr wn expenses or not. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of this order be placed on record of o'ther conneetad writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Babhi