~S3Ti,/^~iS .T'rtTTu" a -g- i-| % |_ ^g j g^ §' (W n-TTTATTTSCAttTI AT RT ^f^.^.^. •^-?A' :%^-X3.A^^ S.-a. A-g..^I^J;A S.A's-a-A sT'1 ~TU-. ~S" T"1" /^ &^ ^ g i i^? S.B. : HON'BLE JUSTICE SATISH K. AGXIHOTRI WTiiT P?rTI?TTflN i'S'i Nn I.Sl". nftfffif ? ? A^A A _iT A^ X i.A ^.^./- ^ 1.3^ 1 ^ U^ ^;i°S^-^f yi .3i^?'t_f i PETITIONEfi. iNDFNTS Kemusi ^hnnf r^- .1111. ^?/0, baill lyllllL /VDSG vears, Assistant i eacAsr. unarfiin1Bi2Bm. .uistt^ K-aisani. V£KSUS State of Chhattisearfa. Tliroueli the oecrstar/^ ii.uucauoii .ueparuiien'L D.K.S. Bhawa"-Raipuri'C.G.) • . 1 iiG i/ismcT ^d^cnTion uiiic©r. Uastnct Kaigam \'^.u.) The 31ock Education Ofiiten Block Dliaramiaigarh. District Ratgarh ^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF [NDIA FOR ISSUANCE.OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS. ^ERTiORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. Present: Shri Asnwa.ni Shukla. Advocate for the nstitioner, Shri Aja^' Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State / respoadeats. fPassed dav ot'Aunl. 2007) Leamed counsei appearing &r the petitioner as wsll as for the Stats/respondents jointly submit mat ftse fact and questioc of law iiivolved in the present wTit petition are the same to that of in Yashwani Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and (II) MPJR-CG 96}, which has been ^- £.. of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. Li subsequent cases, i.e., Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kmntir Vernw vs. The Sta.ie Govt. of Chhattisga.rh and another'} and other connec.ted matters. decided bvthis Court 01115- 12-2006. piirsuant to xhe memo dated 28-1-1995. issued by As Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and tlie prospectus of Diploma iu Education Examinatioa, it was clarified tiiat ths nomenclature of fhe Basic Trainine Institute, i.e., B.T.I, has been cliaiiged aiid renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. AccordmdY. the D.Ed. Certificats liolders are aJso covered by the decision iii Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Verina vs. Ttie Govt. of finoth'er) (Supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Bharadwaj Vs. Corporatjon, Durg (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether Ae netitioner has acauired D.Ed. Examination Certificate 011 his owa expenses as per tfas cii-cuiars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and further whether he faas bsen ria.id two advance incremsnts or not, No ordsr as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Arut