O'S.8''^' C RFRjp?j- ^:.^. ^-...:.- ^.- ^^^'S^a E: ...<• ^•<^ r^^C--^ ^ ^•"§€y~ c-^i ^ ••y- !.(: y INTHE HI(SI,C6URTOFCHHATTISGARH AT (2) BILASPUR WRITPETITIONfSlNO^"<-7^2Q06 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS r^ / h"' f: ^ Ramesh KumarVerma S/o Late Shri Kalanath Verma Age about41 years, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Asounda, Block - Tilda, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Distrlct Education Officer Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TNE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA Petitioner most humblysubmit as under :- @ @ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.fahto. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner : AABghann'th Yadav Verau Respondents : State 6ovt. of Chhatlisgarh A ono'ther W. P. fS) No. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner ; Sfljiidhar Prasad Sohu Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of ChhattiS9arh A dno-rtier W. P.ffflNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner : Roniaahonkar fiupta Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of Chhatrtagarh A ono'ther W. P. (SVNo. 5638 of 2006 Petitionw : Tcekam Lal Sinha Versus Respondcnts : State6ovt.af ChhattiagarhAano'thcr W.P.faNo.5639ofZ006 Petitwner : Smt. Sunita Pttl Versus Respondents : State 6wt. of Chhattisgarh A onolher W. P.faNo. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner : AAahboob Khan Quraishi Versus ; Stateewt.ofChhattiagnrhAono'ther W.P.rftNo.S641of2006 : Smt. Jageaiwri Bha9el Reapondents Ptetitionw : Veraus Respondents : StntBSwt.ofCWKrttisgartiAano-lhcr W. P.faNo. 5642 of 2006 Petitwner : Tulendra KumarTniuri Versus Reapondents : Storte 6ovt. of Chhattiagarh A orwther W.P. (S) No. B643 of 2006 Petitioner : Raninytur yadam Veraua Respondents : StttteScvt.ofChhattXgBrhAawther ^ Pktitioner Reapondents Retitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Rcspondents Petitioner Respondents Petitwner Reapondents Petitwner Respondents PetHioner Reapondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. fS) No.^5644 »f2006 : Anuj Ram Sahu Veraus : StatefiBvt.ofChhattiagorhAono-rticr W. P.(S)No. 8646 of 2006 Rnjendra Kumar 6uptn Vcrsus : Sftrtie 6ovt. of CWiattB9orh d anolher W. P.faNo. 5647 of 2006 ; SharadThNuri Versus : Statc 6ovt. of Chhatti^nrh A another W. P. (5) No.5648 of 2006 : MohendroPredndShukla Versus : State 6av*.of Chhcrttiagarh A ono-thw W.P.fS)hk».5673ofa)06 ; fiunbhooahan 5ohu Versus State 6ovt. of Chhattiagarh A orwther W.P.(StNo.'S674of2006 : Snt. Jaya Tiwiuri Vwass : Stute 6ovt. of Chha»tia9arhd arwrtiw W. P. (S\ No. 5675 of 2006 : Tuka ftam Chandrukar Versus Starte 6ovt. of Chhattiagarh A arwther W. P./SlNo. 5676 of 2006 : Ramesh Kumar Verma Versus : State Gavt. of Chhattisgnrh A onolher And W.P.f5lMo.5677of 2006 Vcrsus DhaMayPtttel Stete 6avt. of Chhattugarh Aanolher Siigto Banch: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sutiah K. Agnihotri. Shri Ajay 5hrivostuwx, Advocate for the Petitionws. Snit. Anju Ahuju, t>y. 6ovt. Advocote for Itie reapondenta/Stute. OR&ER (26th October. 2006) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for •the petitioners submrts Ihat while workin9 as Assistant TenchersAlpper Owision Teachers/Lechirers, the petitioners haw gone on irwninQ to improve their qualificutions on •their own expanaea and acquh^d B. Ed7B.TJ Ewunination Gertificatc. The present wit petitions, beirg WfJfJS) Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006. 5637/2006, 5638/2006. 8639/2006. 5640/2006. 5641/2006. 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006. 5647/2006. 5648/2006, 5673/2006,5674^006, 5675/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 inwlve aimiltB' facts ond awimon question of bw. Thus, Iheae petitions are bung dispesed of by Ihis comnwn order. Accord»»9 to leamed counscl for Ihe petMionws, Ihe petitiuners are entitted to t»*oodwinee increments h viei»of 1+ie decision of -this Court' in Ihe caae of yaahwnnt Kuinar Kwradtiuij Vs. AAunicipal Corporation, Durg and anolher {2006 CII) MPJR-CS 96}. This Court in -the cnse of YaahNiunt Kumar BharodtNBj Vs. Municipal Corporution, Dwg ond anolhw o^ 4 (Supra), cn«ne to •the conchwion Ihtit the teochws, who had obtnincd B.Ed./B.TJ. Examhiation Certificate on his own expenaes, are covered by Ihe drcutar dotBd 24.1258 isued by 1he State Sovemment of Madhya Praiteah. 4. Leomed counsel for •the petitionera further subnuts •that Ihe facts and question of law inwlved h 1h«present caass are squardy covered by ctecision of •this Court- h Ihe caae of yaah«»antKunwr Bharadtiu(j Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and onother (Supra), to wihich teamed couiuel appeurin9 for •the respondents fnirly concedM andagrces «wththe awrmcnt made by leamed counsel oppearing for Ihe pctitionws. 5. Accordingly, the writ petitiona are oJlwed in terms of Ihe ordw passed in •the case of yaahwnnt Kuniar Bharadwuj Vs. ^unicipul Corponrtion, Durg and ano-ther (Supra), aibject' ta VBrification of the foct as to Nhether Ihc petrtioncrs hwc ncquired B. E<t/B.TJ. Examinatwn Cu^ificarte on Iheir own expensBS ar not. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of Ihis order be plaoed on record of olhcr connect^ writ petjtions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge