CHHATTISGA RH: BILASPUR TION i3) NO. 25 OF 2007 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1) Minketan Rana, S/o. Shri Pur achandra Rana, aged about 42 years, Occupation - Service, Po ted as Assistant teacher, pos ed at Primary Schoo! Pu hhkiyapaH, Vikash Khand, Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh, CG. Diiqshwar Prasad Rathiya, S/o. i Shri Jogiram Rathiya aged about 42 iyears, Occupatio'n - Service posted as Assistant Teacher, Pre Metrics School Tandapara, E Vikash Khand, Kharsiya, Dist. ‘ Rai§arh,CG. Mukund Ram Jaiswai, S/o. Shri i Deviprasad Jaiswai, aged about 44 years, Occupation — Service 3 posted as Assistant Teacher.g Primary School Choda, Vikash : Khand, Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh, i CG. Nand Kumar Dansena, Slot Shri i i Janak Ram Dansena, aged about i 46 years, occupation - Service i posted as Assistant Teacher, 1 High School Telikoat, Vikash s Khand, Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh, i CG. l ‘ x ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ r } > \ { Sushil Chandra Patel, Slo. Shri ; anesh Ram Patel, aged about : 43 years, occupation - Service posted as Assistant Teacher, High School Telikoat, Vikash Khand, Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh, G. hivshanker Patel Slo. Shri anesh Ram Patel: aged about l 41 years, occupation — Service i osted as Assistant Teacher, i igh School Telikoat, Vikash l hand, Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh, f CG. Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, i through the Secretary, I, Department of School Education, i D.K.S. Building, Raipur, CC“ i l ‘ ? 3 PETITIONERS ‘ G C S G p H K ? HIGH COURT OF WRIT PETI 2) The Commissioner, Department of ribal Welfare Development, Rai ur,Dist.Raipur,CG. 3) The Director, Public Instruction Pen ion Bada, Raipur, Dist. Rai ur,CG. 4) Dist ict Education Officer, Raiéarh, Dist. Raigarh, CG. Sinqie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Aqnihotri PRES NT: Shri Sunii sahu, counsel for the peiitioners. i i i i i i i i i E i } Smi. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. i oRAL ORDER i (Passed on 11*“ April, 200?) 1. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as weil as for the ‘ State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg . and another{ 2006 (ll) MPJR -CG 96}, which has been disposed of 3 vide order dated 342006. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. 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 —1 995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it ’was clarified that the nomenclature of the Basic Training institute i.e., B.T.l., has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 ‘(Gopesh Kumar Verms Vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supr ). Accordingly, the writ petition is allow ‘d in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (supra), subject to verification of the fact as to Whether the pe itioner has acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on his own xpensee as per the circulars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999 andlfurther whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to coets, r Sd/- r l ,Satish K. Agnihotri l r \ 'Judge