0 ......^^ e »"' i^ ??'°?.S'^l£f? StlaQlE BENGN d.^)^^^ /•^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR > W.P.(S.)NO. /2010 y PETITIONER: Shyam Dayal Patel S/o Shri Champat Rain Patel, Aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher Goveminent Priinary School Duinarpali, Block Pussour, District-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS A 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Educatonal Departinent D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.j 2. The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3, The Block Education Officer, Block Pussour, Distt Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF UKE NATURE ETC. ^ H1GH COURT OF CHHAJTlSGARHATKLASPuR WRIT PETmON fS) No. 805 of2010 Shvam Daval Patel. RESPONDENTS State ot'CUhattisgarh & Others. ^ Writ Petition Uader Article 226 QfThe Constitution Oflndia SB: Hon'ble Slm Sateh K. As'nifaotri, J, Present: Sbti Dham Ram Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. >hri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. forthe Stats/respondents. ORALORUER (Passed on 25th day of Febn'.ary, 2010) i^- With consent, leamed counsel for the parties were heard finally. 1. By this petition, tiie petitioner seeks a direction to fhe respondents to pay two advance mcrements from the date ofpassing ofD.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during his seivice period. 2. Shri Patel, leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved m the present case is no longer res integra as the saine has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. as weU as by this Court in the matter of Yashvant Kumar Bkaradwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothef^ and Gopesh Kiimar yerma v. The State Govt. ofChhattisgarh and anothei . 3. Shri Patel further subinits that the instant petition is squai-ely covered by the decision as atbrestated. Thus, the petitioner may be pennitted to make ' 2009 (II) MPJR (SC) 59 22C06(U)MPJR-CG96 3WP('S)No.4130of2005 a representation to decide his case iii the liaht of aforestated decisioii, subject to verification oftiie fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certiticate on his owa expenses duriagthe course ofhis service. 4. Leamed couiisel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, flie petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordaiiee wifh law and in the lielit ofthe decisions of the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena (siipra) as well as tiiis Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharad-waj' and GopeshKumar Verma (supra), within a period offour weeks fromthe date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. In view offbregomg, according to the leamed counsel appearing tbr the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordmgly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Am2t__