SINGLE BENCH y '4- t IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSlSARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. L-t ^ f^C / 2011 Petitioner .CA^^^^> \At/v' "...•:"0"."^9.vi:"*" '{^•^^!^^"..-^'\"') ^) <^sfe!b'.---.,o^1 ^' tfaY6' Versus Respondents , Brijesh Chakravorty S/o Shri Asin Chakravorty, Aged about 47 years, Lecturer Sovernment Higher Secondary School, Portha, Block - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Education bepartment [5.K.S. 6hawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur- (C.6.) District Education Officer, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.G.) 2. 3. Joint Account and Treasury, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.6.) 4. Block Education Officer, Block ~ Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa-(C.6.) WRIT PETETTON UN&ER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OFINDIA c ^^ HIGH COOTiT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. W.P.(St No.4616/2011 Petitioner Respondents versus Brijesh Chakravorti' State of Chnattisgarh & Others Petition u/A 226 ofthe Constitutioa oftodla Appearance: Shri A.S. Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 12.8.2011) 1. By fhis petition, fhe petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance tncrements on passing B.Ed. exammation, on his own expenses, before enterm^ into service. 2. Leamed coi.msel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in fhe present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. 3s Ors.1 as weU as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharad-waj v. - Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothsr9 and Gopesh Kurnar Verma v. The State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another3. 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 \06(n) MPJR-CG96 \(S)No.4130 of 2005 »i G 3. Leamed counsel furtfaer submits (hat the instant petltion is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be pennitted to raake a representation to decide his case in the Ught of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of fhe facts asto whether fhe petitioner has acquired B.Ed. degree on his own expenses before entering into service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the State Govt. has also issued an order on 5th Januaiy, 2011 (Annexure P-4). 4. Leamed counsel appearir^ for fhe State submlts that in the event, fhe petitioner raakes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in fhe light of fhe decisions of fhe Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), as well as fhis Court in Yashwant Kumar BhaTadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of 3 monfhs Irom ttie date of receipt of fhe representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed coiinsel appearing for fhe petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordlngly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- i Manindra Mohan Shrlvastava Judge