F Pfepu ^4^y^?r c^/ CTQ (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.s~6if6 12006 PETITIONER ^^^ ^€>S^ '^M^ ...-•<:^" y^' A«.^••' RESPONDENTS / Mahendra Prasad Shukla /" S/o Shri G. P. Shukla Age about 45 years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls H. S. School, Durg, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh ^ Through: Secretary, o^ School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) .sv^ ^"" 2. District Education Officer <^ 0 Durg(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUT1QN OF INDLA @ -^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATHS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S)No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : MB9hanarth yadav Versus ftespondents : State 6ovt. of Chhuttisgarh Aano'ltier W. P.faNo. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner ; Siyndhar Prasad Sohu Versus Reapondents ; State 6ovt. of Chhc(ttia9arh A o»K>1her W. P. (5)No. 5637 of 2006 Ptetitioner : Ranwphaidtar 6up1u „ Versus "• t Respondents : Sta*e 6<wt. of Chhattisgarh AoBother W. P.faNo. 5638 of 2006 Petitionw : Tcekam Lal Sinha Versus Reapondcnts : StateSovt.ofChhattiagarhAawthcr W. P.fSlNo. 5639 of 2006 : Smt.SunitnRal Versus : Statc 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh Aanother W.P.fS)No.S640of2006 : Mnhbopb Khan Qunrishi Petitioner Respondents Petitioner : Versus fteapondents : State 6wt. of Chhattiagarh A anotti W. P.fftMo. 8641 of 2006 Ptetitioner : Smt. Jagesiwri Bha9el Veraus Reapondents : Stutcewt.ofChhattiagarhAanolhw Ptetitioner Reapondents Petitioner W.P.faNo.S642of2006 : Tulendni Kumur TnNri Versus State 6ovt. of ChhatMsgorh A uwther W. P.fSiND. 5643 of 2006 : Ronwytw yadawn \<BMUS Respondents : Stute 6ovt. of Chhattiagurti A an<rthcr Petitk»ner Reapondents Retitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Ptttitioner Rcspondents Petitioner Respondeirts Petitioner fteapondwits Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondents Petitionw Resuondefrts W. P. fSl No. S644 of 3)06 : Anuj Rom Sahu Sttrte 6ovt. of Chhattisgurh Aono-thcr Vcraus W. P.(S)No. 5646 of 2006 : Rnyendra (fiumor fiupta Versus : State 6uvt. ®fChhuttis9orh A orto'thcr W. P.faNo. 5647 of 2006 ShBffadTiwari Versua Sta*«6ovt. of Chh<rttiS9nrh A aiwthw W.P.fS)No.S648of2006 MahcndraPraaud Shukla Versus : Stutefiuvt.ofaihatttegorhAaNrthur W. P.fS^Nn. 5673 of 2006 : fiunbheoahan Sohu Veraus Stut* 6uyt. of Chhattiagnrh AarwHw W. P.fStNo. 5674 of 2006 : Snt. Jayu Tiwnri Versus : Stetceovt.ofChhottiagarh&ano-riicr W.P.(aNo.5675ef200& : Tuka ftnm Chandnkar Versus Shate 6ovt. of Chhatrtagarh Aano'ther W. P.faNo. 5676 of 2006 : Ramesh Kumar Verma Veraus : StateSovt.ofChhattisgnrhAoiwthw And W.P.fStNo.5677 of SW Versus Dhanaay Rntel Shrte 6ovt. of ChhattiaBarh Aanolhcr n^A Singto Bmch: Hon'bte Mr. Justice SarUah K. Agnihotri. Shri Ajoy 5hrivi(Sstiavu, Advocate for the Pktitioners. Smt. Aiju Ahuja, t)y. 6ovt. Advocate for Ihe reapondcnWState. OfttiER (26th Ortober. 2006) Lcamed aBunael appearing for -the petrt'ionws aibmrts 1+wrt while *»wkin9 as Assistant TeuchersAlpper Owiaion Teachera/Lechirers, the petitioners hw gone on *ruinin9 •to improve Iheir qualificotions on •their o*»nexpcnaea ond ncquind B. Ed7B.TJ Examination Certificate. 2, 3. 'The present writ petitions, being WJ»^S) Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006,5637/21006,5638/2006.8639/2006,8640/2006, 5641/2006, 5642/2006. 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006, 5647/2006, 5648/2006.5673/2006.5674/2006.56TO/2006, 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 mwlve aimittu- facts and cammon question of taw. Thus, Iheae petitiona cre bcing disposed of by Ihis conunon order. According to learned counael for Ihe petitionws, Ihe petitioners are urtitted to •hiw odvunce hcremenfts in vie*»of •the decision of •this Cowt in •the CMB of yoahNnnt Kwnnr BharadtiBy Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg cnd anolher {2006 (W MPJR-C& 96}. This Court h Ihe case of Yaahwant Kiumnr Bharodiwy Vs. Municipal Corporution, Durg and awlhu' (Supra). ooBne to the cwichtfion ihat •the teachws, who had obtained B.EdL/B.TJ. Exammation CerMficate on his own expenses, are covered by Ihe circutar doted 24.12.98 teaued by •the State Swemment of Mndhya Pradedh. 4. LBdrned counsel for Ihe petitwners ftrthcr aubniif •Ihat Ihe facts and question of law inwlved in 1h«pnsent casts arc squarely cwensd by decision of Ihis Coirt in Ihe caae of Yaahtinnt Kumar BhnradNuu Vs. Aturadpal Corporntion, Durg and ano-ther (Supra), •to uihich teumed couwd dppcan^ for •the reaponduits fdirly conced»sand ayeea twth the wenvtnt nude by leamed counsel oppearing for •the pctitioners. 5. Accordin^, •ttie writ petitions are allwicd in terms of thc order passed in •the cnse of yaahN—itKuniar Bharadwiy Vs. <Aunicipal Corponrtion, Durg and anolher (SupnQ, abjtct *o wrification of -Ihe fact as to ihether 1h« petrMoneM hawe acquired 8. Ed7B.TJ. Btaminatian CM-tificutB on •rtieir own expensea or not. No orderas to caats. 6. A copy of -this order be pkxri on ncord of o'thu' a»nned»d wrvt petitions. Sd/- SafehK.Agnihotn Judge lu