0¢/05L S.B. Service Matte IN 1HE HIQH COURT OF CHHAHISQARH AT §IQ§PQR (CHEé'ITLSGARHI WRIT PmITION (S) Noggd‘z’ @006. PELJTIQNEE: / Tiharu Lal Kaiwart S/ o Banshi Ram Kaiwart, aged about 49 years, Asst.Teacher, Janpad Primary Schol, a Bhadaura, Block Development Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. VEg§US Respongents / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secre‘taxy‘School Education Department Ministxy D.K.S.Bhawa.n, Raipur, /E,CQPY %A\ ; ‘1 ,. , e, T G. [x BWP‘S? { o an z 2. Director Chhattisgarh. ' of School Education Office, c . D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. . / 3. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, Through Block Development Education Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. / WEIT PE} ITION UEDEE AR llCLE 226i 227 QF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PEIIIIONER: As mentioned in the Cause title. '° e é thiS Court i1} {11,3 cas of Ya$hwant Kimmy Bharadwa‘; Vs. o HEG‘H CQUR’E" OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR W P ()No 56‘19 2006 Petitioner Rakhi Kamar Miri Vemus Rsspondents : State of Chhatti$garh {Ea 0T11€1‘$ W. P. is) No. 5810 of2006 Pa’iifiontir : Rame3hwam Prasad Sumall Versus RaspondEnts z Siam of Chhattisagarh (”1, otha‘s W. P. £3) N0. 58G? of'EGOé Pstitioner : Raj; Knmai'Tiwali srsus R snondml‘i‘a z $tat€ of Chbgfibgarh &J o‘u‘lm P. {s‘é No. 5808 of 2006 Petitioner Tiharu Lal Kaiwart VarsuS Respondeing .. tats of Chjlattisgarh 63G otharé‘. 3iag§a Eemch: Heifbk M1: Justiw ga‘t’mh K xixgalmtri. $431 A L aum“ ‘ $Lai‘ma, ”uvocata far {116 Psahsné‘r Slam btkarsh V€rma, gov L, Advocam for me Stats] reS§30nd€ntg 0 r€ D F 1’ i (27th Octabsr, 2006) L . Tim pEti’Lionas are Workmg 61$ Ass; x831? T€achkrs in the 50V€mmcat 5chools E11 tap coulsc o‘ Tncr“ rEwu {As 91$ AmsiSTapt Tiaaclwrs, T116 petitionm‘g have obtainad B.Ed‘,¥B.T‘L mammatian cs:‘t§iicat€$ 011 their ova} Expsnws bafore 1.3. 199?. 2. Writ Pati‘u'on (S) No.5; 5811/2006, 58 10,’ 2006, 5808/2006 a11¥i 5807;2006 am being diSpOS€d of by i11i$ common 0mm“ as} thé facts and qués‘tion of law involved i11 thaw pétii'ions am cammcn. 3. Accordmg to lsanled counsel for the patitionsrs‘) ”£116 1961itioners am entitlal to :Wo advancs i11crem€11t§a in View of t‘m: deciSion of 2 @ Mjlnicinal Comoratioa, Burg $151 axw‘xher {2006 {1}) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court m m6 cas€ of ¥as§3wai1i Kuwar Bllmadwaj V34 Muizicipal Corporatian, Durg 311d. another (Supra), cainc to tha conclusiml that the ‘ieachars, who had obtainad B. Ed, ,fBfi‘j. Examinatica C61¢jflcafs 011 th€ir Own expenscis, am coverad by 111a circular damd' 24.1298 {Ammxum Pi?) isslmd by the S’ram GOV€m1m€nf of Madhya Pradésh. 9u1¢xhey i11 Tim mattar of Smt. Manorama ShrivaS‘Lavs VS. State of MP. a11d othm‘s { 2000 (1) MVPLSR. 135 } the Madhya Pradash Stats Adminisfratim Tribunal, Gwalior Btmch, Waile conSidermg th6 CircuEar damd 1.3.199§ whaeinj ii is. provid€d that ‘thtj ASSisTani Teachm‘s, who haVE acquimd BEd. dagra€ at thaeir W11 COS? batwgsall 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 ShaE 136 antitkd i0 1W0 advanca ii1CEam€n1is, r61‘16d on decision :111 “£116 ca$6 of 'Rakcsh Kumar Shyivastava Vs. Suzie of MP. 6&3 oiherg passcd 111 QANO. 1632/99. clccided on 12.10.1999 whcrcin it is obscwcci {hat thE cimulm tiatad 1.1-3. 19%? canxwt bc made app1icabic Isn‘ospéactivc'ly. Thuss, a tcachcr, may be Agsismllt Teacher. who has 0333mm}. BEE. dcgrcc bcforé 1.3.1999 is cnfificd mcrcments. two advallcc }4 «4- ii is 130E166; out by 16811166. caurlsel appearmg for thc §ctiti$ncr$ thai the thcn State of Madhya Pradcsh had flici‘l a Spacial Lcave Pciiiion agajllst ‘13 orc'iem §3a$sed by the Tmbunal 313d. thc Hon’b‘ic Supreme Court dismissed Spac'ial Leave Pctitlon No. 1‘999;’2QDQ §ilcd agamst the ordér of the Tribunai. Thcrcfore, tics dircction to §he (affect that ‘fhc circular daicd‘ lid. 1999 cannot b6 2313.616 appiicabk retrospectiveiy, pagSed by ”r116 Tn'bunal, becomcg final ami €116 $ame shall be ap§)}icabl€ To all i116 AcSi$t5mt TeachcrS who havc obtain€€§ B.Ed.,lB.T.§. examinaficg certiiicate bcforc 1.3.1999. 1t i$ iinthcr subataxli’iated by a ciz‘cular (iat'sd 17.10.2063 iSsucd by thia prcscnt STatB of Madhya Pradcsh wherein the circular dearly states about the decision af fhe Supreme Court. p l Leayne& counsel for the petitioneys further submits that the fams am} question 0f law 1'11vo1ved in the preeem case are squmdy ON. 1 y asa 0f Vashwam Kumar 61‘ ($Ll1n‘a) , décision (31‘ ibis Cam; in éihe c Mumciyal CemoraYion, Dm‘g 313d anotb 61 agpaaring i‘or concadss aml agm€$ with the avarment mad€ by manmrA coma. covemd by Bharatlwaj lamsa VS. couns is fairly to which appEaring for 1116 pal‘fioners. the reavpondma 3:3} the ordar ’rlle wxii petition am i$ Kumai‘ a‘bwai Bhaxac‘maj in mm?» Vs, of Muuicmal to Vém'flcation cf B. Ed. haw acquixsd 7 . Accordingly, caSS of Yashw gaasssd m the 1pm}, subject ma 19ati$idnar3 Examma’rion Cm'tiiica‘m on their 24.l2.1998 azlcl 1.3 baiin paixi iwo own 6Xp6n5asé as par the circulars .1999 am} £m¢har whstha they ham 11:1 mother (Si i116 fact as to Whathér clated orc‘mr a3 *io casfs. " Comora‘tion, Burg a \ mlvahce mommania 01‘ 1101. No piacaéi 011 racord m. connacwd mat‘mm. I A C0§>y of this Grilar b6 . Sdl- Satxsh K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur