$§§£GL£ lE$§¥ ® C/DL \WL/k IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. W9 /2010 PETITIONER / Ram Chand Khare S/o Shiv Prasad Khare, Aged about 44 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School Kharhtta, Block— Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham— (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Education? D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Distti Raipur (C.G.) The District Education officer, Distt. Kabirdham—(C.G.) Block Education officer, Bodla, Distt.Kabirdham— (C.G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. WWW 200 mm (WEI) mmm 3911mm Wmm WW wW §Eaimm “g. SB ' HGK’BLE MR JBSTECE PR w Shri Daipak Jain, camisgl Shri ?rave€n Das, EJy. GA. The petitioner, who was Assistant Teacher under the $c} 23.8.94 (Annexure P! i} is agg respondents in not adding two ad even though he did his ’D.Ed. f1 Mandel, ‘Rainur at his own cost permiesion for the eame &0m the Counsel for the petitioner entifled for two advance increme Examination certificate; in acco Circu1ar dated 24. 12.98 axld in vi Supreme Court in the maiier oi Badrmarayaxl Acharya and othe and Yashwa11t Kumar Bhardwa Burg an& allother reporteé 'm 20C On {he other hami, couns erstwhile State of Madhya r T‘ 22.10.1964 aliowed advance government servants who pm 22.XO.1964 whether at his own c However, who proceeded on m 1» {THHKER DEWAKER E‘or me peiiiiamer. for the State. appointed, on the post of 7001 Educaiion Deparfment on rieved bV the action of the vance moremellts in his saiarV om (LG. Marihvamik Shiksha in the year 2005 after seekmg department. submits that the petitiorler is nts as he had obtamerl DEd :daxrce with the provisions of ew ofthe judgments of Honhk State of MP. & Another Vs. rs reported in 1996 SC 2779 j Vs. Municipal Corporation, 6 (FE) MPJR 96 {CG}. el for fhe Sfaie submits that da ted raxiesh vide circular morements only to those seeded for trairlihg u? to 3st or at the government cost. 11g (m or after 23. 10. 1964 carr \ aaJ:.e;..o)..mé~..£.&§P 5" mm 1/4: Wm (Wm WWW WWW WWW WWW WIW§ éwfmm malt. Thi$ circular of datéd 3 oxder dated 10.12.1975. Tha GovernmEnt Vida notificamd deLtsd 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non— Gazette Class-H Ekiucationa‘ Q1 not at the cost of the Govarr 23.10.1964 was supercsded v3'd Services (Non-college Services) Recruitment am}, Promotion Rules, 1993 ad<ied qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appoin Teacher. The petitioner be entitled for advance increments only in ‘the condition that he had obtajeed his B.T.I]B.E(i./B.T.L degree at hi3 rmeot on the post of Assistant Wcui d own cost during service after obtm‘izing yermission form the flepartment beiween 23. 10‘ 1964 to 1.3.99.‘ To Clarify the above g osition, circuiars have alreadv been issued on 6.2.2007 and on Facts, as detailed above, aTe not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwarxt Kumar 24.12.98, 1.3.99 arm} relying upon the judgmerxt of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Badn‘narayarl Acharya’s case t be erltitled to two advance examination certificate after dated 22}0.t964 does not eriori of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed er held that circutar datea ant Teachers (LD’T‘) ans? not to Bharadwaj (suera) eiaborately discussing the circuiars dated { not assistant teachers aione, increments on obtairting B.Ed. 22.10.1964. as the circuiar prescribe a11y outer Emit of the 8r. B.T.I. certificate. 1t has been 1.3.99 is appticabte to ooly Ass other teachers (UDT). pra) has heki that teachers, k .h (3?) (wuss h:2oo 30.1.09. R w t» t I-HC—78 \ W200 Wm WWW ammm WWW WW WW $aimm : pm'ncipk of }aw iaid down ilz ‘e {supra} has aitajxlari finality 1is petitior; is also squarely nt as also circular (iated Shri Das fajr‘lv submits thaw Yashwailt Kumar Bharadwaj’s cas and. casc of the patitioner in t‘ ‘covaai by th€ above judgm€ 24.12’1€998. For ths aforesaid reasons. t he petitienm‘ is entitkd to tbs payment of two advance incremon ts fmm the: data of decimation Ltion rosult The respondents ie payment of two arlvajace the date of her passing D.Ed. ;f four months from today. ct to all verifications made by n the petition. ker Diwaker Judge of the petitionefs DEdV examinz are accordingly d‘wected to ma? increments to the petitioner from examination: Within a period ( However, this order shaJl be su'bje the State regarding facts pleaded 1' No order as to costs. Prit'm mm (Wu) i