sm^ F RRNC SSSteiLC 8J""B>1' ^OCT Z. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER ^l°3| \A.-;r; ...•-•"^•••\^"' ^' \>:v" ^;-s RESPONDENT t^ :y W. P.(S). N0. s'6r3^L 12006 Ramashankar Gupta r'^s s/o shri Hira Lal Gupta Age about 39 years, Village-Daukapa Post-Birgaon Tehsil - Mungeli Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. StateGovtofChhattisgarh Through Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) f-2. District Education Officer Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ^3. Block Education Officer Mungeli Block Office Mungeli Distt.-Bilaspur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA Petitioner most humbly submits as under:- @ '^^ HE6H COURT OF CHHATnSfiARH AT BELASPUR W.P.(aNo.563Sof2006 Petitioner : Meghonarth Yadw Versus ftespondents : StateSovt.ofChhattisgarhAonoltier W. P.fSlNo. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner : Scyadhar Prusad Sahu Versus Respondents : Stute 6ovt. of CWwtKs9arh A anulher W. P.faNo. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner ; Rnmaahankar 6up1u Versus Reapondents : Stute 6<wt. of Chhattia9trh A uwthcr W. P.faNo. 5638 of 2006 Petitionw : Tcduun Lal Sinha Vwrsus : Reapondmts : Statefiovt.ofChhattiagnrhAano'thcr W. P.fSlNo. 5639 of 2006 Pktitioner : Smt. SunitaPal Versus RMpondents : StateSewt.ofChhattisgarhAanolhw W. P.faNo. 5640 of 2006 Petitioner : Mahboob Khon Quroishi iVerau : State6ovt.ofChhattiaignrhA<no1her W.P.fSllMo. 5641 of 2006 : Smt. Jageawuri Bhagel Reapondcnts Ptetitioner : Veris Respondents : StuteSwt.ofChht^tisgarhAuwlhcr W. P.fS^Np. 5642 of 2006 Petitioner : Tutendru Kumer Tniuri Venus Rcspondents : State 6ovt. of Chhatliagdrh d ano'thcr W. P. (S) No. 8643 of 2006 Petitioner : Ramaytar yadam Weraua Re^pondents : Stut«6ovt.ofChhB[ttiagarhaano1her Retitioner Rcapondents Retitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondents Petitioner Respondnrts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner ReapondBnts Petitioner Respondents Petittoner Reaponchnts Petitioner RBapondents W. P. fS) No. S644 <rf a»6 ; AiujftomSahu Veraus : State Snvt. of Chhettisgnrh Aano-rtier W.P.raNo.S646ofaX)6 : Rayendra (fiumar fiupta Vcrsus : SMe6ovt.af anhsttiagarh&amlhwr W. P.fSiNo. 5647 of 2006 : Shnrad Ti»nrJ Versus : StoitcSovt.ofChhuttisgnrhAano'rticr W. P.faNo. 5648 of 2006 : MnhendraPraaadShukla Versus : StorhEfiovt.ofChhttttfagarfiAanolhu' W. P.rSlNo. 5673 of 2006 ; fiunbhaoahon Sohu Veraus Stut'e Suvt. of ChhdEMisgnrh A another W. P.fSlNo. 5674 of 2006 : Snt. Jcya Tiwnri Veraus : Statefiovt.ofCWwttiagcrhdanothcr W. P.fSlNo. 8675 ef 2006 : Tuku Rnm Oidn*akur Verais State 6ovt. of Chhattiagarh A arwlher W.P.ffflNo. 5676 of 2006 : Rnmesh Kunwr Vcrnw Veraus : Statefiovt.ofChhattisgurhAano'ther Md W^JSlNB^5677of M06 Versus DhananyRBtel State 6wt. uf Chhattiagarh Aanother Stosft* Bmch: Hon'ble rtr. Justte Satteh K. ^kgnlhutri. 5hri Ajoy Shriwstaw, Advocutc for the Petitioncrs. Snt. Aiju Ahuja, Oy. 6ovt. Adwcute for l(w reaponderrta/Stute. OROER (26th Ortuber. 2006) 1. Learned counsel oppearing for Ihe peth'ioners aubmrts Iha* while Nwrking as Assistant TeachersAJpper Owison Taachers/Lechirers, •the petitioners haw gone on training *o improw •their qualificcrtwns on 'rtwr ONB expcnaes and acquind B. EA/B.TI Examirwtion Certifictite. 2. The present wit petitions, being WJ»^ Nos. 5635/2006, 5636/2006,5637/2006,5638/2006, S639/2006. 5640/2006. 5641/2006, 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 8644/2006, 5646/2006, 5647/Z006, 5648/2006, 5673/2006.5674/2006,5675/2006. 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 involw aimilar facts and common question of len». Thus, Iheae petitww are bcing dispased of by •this conunon order. 3. Accordirg to learned counsel for •the petitionBrs, Ihe petitioners are entitted *o •h»oadvnnce inGrunents h vie—of •the decision of -this Court- m Ihe cer of YoahNnnt Ifiumnp BharadfBy Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dur9 and anolher {2006 CEE) WJR-C6 96}. This Court in Ihe cuae of YaahNunt Kumar BharadtNay Vs. Municipal Corporution, Durg and anothw 4 »• (5upra), oame toithe conchision ihat Ihe ^tBuchi's, who hud obtnincd B.Ed./B.Tl. Exammation CBrMficafte on his o«wi expenscs, are cowred by Ihe drcuha- dated 24.12^8 isaued by 1he State Sovemment of Madhya PndMh. 4. Lenmed counscl for •the petitionera lurther aubmif Ihat Ihe fucta and <|uestion of kn» iwolved in 1h« ppesent eaass wc squardy covered by decision of this Cotrt in •the cnae of Yaahcunt Kunur Bhara«h»ayVs. Municipel CorparBtK»n, Durg and anolher (Supra), 1o which leumed couwel dppwrirg fw •th«reapondents fairly concecks anda9nes »ri'th•tlie cnerment made by learned counsel cppearingfor Ihe pctitioners. 5. Accordingly, Ihe writ pctitions are ulleued in tenns of Ihc ordw passed in •the cnse <rf yaah*»ont Kumnr Bharud»K^j Vs. Municipal Corpwution, Durg and ano'ther (5upra). aubject to wrificotion of Ita fact as to mhe'rtier •the petrMonurs huve acquired B. Ed^B-TJ. EwiminutiN'i CM^ificntB on •their own expcnaes or not. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of •this ordw be placcd on record of o'ther canueetsd writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 8aUu