,^-"- ' HIGH COURT^tFJlHHATTISGAKH, BILA8PUR W.P. (81 No.7483 of 2007 PETITIONERS ^- RE8PONDEHT8 1 Tilak RaTn Mandavi, S/o Shri Fulsingh Maudavi, Aged about 41 years, Lecturer, Govt. BIiartya Higher Secondary School, Kaaker, District Kaolcer (C.G.) 8. Jhadu Ram Kothari, S/o Sttd Milau Ram Kothari, Agcd about 40 years, Lecturer, GovL Giris Higher Secondaiy School, Kanker, District Kanker(C.O.) 3. Roshan Verma, S/o Shri Bbarat I^al Vreina, aged ahoilt 38 years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Narhardeo, Kanker, District Kanker(C.G.) 4. Makliau Lal Saliu, S/o Sbii Topi Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years, Lecturer, Govt. IIigher secoudaiy school, Narhardeo, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 5. Tilak Ram Sabu, S/o Narad Ram Sahu, aged about 47 years, lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondaiy School, Narhardco, Kanter, District Kankcr (C.G.) 6. Smt. Anita Dutta Rai, W/o Shri Shyamlal Dutta Rai, ^ed about 46years, Lccturer, Govt. Bhartiya Higher Secondaiy School, Kauker, District Kanker (C.G.) Vcrsus 1 State of Cbhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) 8 District FAlcation Officer, Kanker, Disti-ict Kanker (C.G.) 3 Block Education Ofl&cer, Block Kanker, District Kaukcr (C.G.) 4 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal WeMare Department, Kanker, District Kaaker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 286 OP THB COWSTITUTIOB OF INDIA WP(S)No. 7483/2007 ApDearance: Shri Md. Tarek Haider, counscl for the petitioniers. Shri Sushil Dubcy, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. ORAL ORDER {19.12.2007) SUmLKVMAR^SlHBA^J Heard on adinission. Leamed counsel for the pflitioners siihmits that the petitioners have passed B.Ed. examination on their own expenses, therefore, they are entitled to ceceive two advance increinents accoiding to circulars dated 34.12.1998 aiid 01.03.1999. He also submits that in inany identical inattcrs, the petitjons have been allowed in terms of tlie order passed in fhe case of Tashwemt Kwnuir Bheira&aaf Vs. Shwlctfieil C^rportttSon, Surs and emoUier fSOOG flB AOUR-CG 96?. He siibmjts that the case ofthe petitioneis is squarely coverert t>y the said judgment. This 1ega1 position is not disputed by the leamed counsel for tlie State. Howevcr, :,he subinits that the onler Tnay he passed in tenns ofthe said jiidgment, but it shall be siibjected to verification reganling petitioners' such qualificatiot). Accordingty, this writ petition is allowed in tenns of fhe order passed in case of Yashiffant Kianar Rharachvaj Vs. Mtwucipal Corporation, Durg cmd another CSupra.) silhject to verification of the facts as to whether the petitioners had acqiiirRd B.Ed. Examination Certificates on their own cxpenses as per circiilars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and fiirther whether they have been paid two advance incrBinents or not The petition stands finally disposcd of No onier as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sunita