•SiiillLE.BENGi &fTiro2— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. '72-37 /2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIONER .•^>.?*-M-IL-'"' <^^ '•"-^' RESPONDENTS <-<.' //^ / \'s>^ j .S.R. KsL'sftiit j ® | /^Kishore Kumar Ghosh (B.Ed.), aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri Lalit Mohan Ghosh, Upper Division Teacher (Promofed as Lecturer), Govemment Tribal Girls Higher Secondary School, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Distt. Raigarh (CG) The Principal, Govemment Tribal Girls Higher Secondaiy School, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) XI-HC-78 tTTHcTT gi*n^ 3q'"4i<<i$a<<^®TD<H'i6,1°i<iiy^< / U). f. ^ Ko, '-^^ S^-/ °<- ^ 200 •w^Tqirf^iN? (iaiT3<l^li*iKi'ti Gopal V-. V0\ sn^r'raw (I{^3sr^T) STctTW af?(T-w^r !ft7 'Vf Mr A N Rhnl/ta B*r Aiav 1 s ^!; , f~'\ .i ^:. Ui i lE s\ Bid ; i »>H . S~\^ffiy ^ Rajput, IVir. B.L.Dembra, ^ Ashwani Shukia, counsei Mr. Arun Sao, GoverRmefi Government Advocate an| •f.n? ^y^d. ^T'al~a/i'Ac?\.'^"j^i&"^''c 'v ;j i^ t^i&tl^fj^^p^/t jiui^i 3t,,3^ "f^]A"h f^";& ni**t*~:'aoy"i' r<£ sissti""^ uit'!Lii 11 itt; ^c^JI s.3?<5i ss, yi i^CSij i i^ ?wsttsia' !?; h^i5ii"J flr'^llv -s'i'^r^ Hi^ i i iCii.i.^.i ti.3 i jSTCEI v<i i;lidi;V dii^ u^ phrivastava, Mr. Anil Singh fsr. Vljay K. Deshmukh and iVir. for the pet!tio"er{s). |t Advocate, Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Ms. Sunlta Jain, Pansi Lawyei ^l v'.^r^\^^ytyfy^ ^f^,^ ^*^^ ya]'^y ?u i.>tjuUt3^'i cSiJjjtfsiUs iy aUi ins=' ytfj f-s y^ s^*r ^\ v^ ^i, •^-viU}}iUii wiU^i Udlctated il ^i-.^n /nl/^i I^, --•'A/d i •^l'-^irfii. /^^3 TV^ V^'^^'"t/tS.r^ <^^\^to^ ^-"^4>/II^K ^ 'ui'^JUiI, pc^SsSQ ^ypStr^lSiV. r:r"^^.?' nf fhi*;; ^rflfar h^ rl:i ih/^/^V ^-r=! itie^^u" 'w'ilui<C?j Jhi/<Sr %/3 Dstitions °hl^Fcl41'l HWvti if fS^S^KZK ^i3ri^T3:n^r tlss, the ./^ ^.s n Writ Petition (S.) No.7237 o '"VR i-i i u'lu'o iS i aced on the resord of the conne,'fi^d v,.?rii ••'u^^'hri W i i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge P.T.O. ^v |U) to 16 ID- 1(1) \tt i'.9 1»>. lt~»- iF-d^ 10 |3 1(1) "i <Bo VI El3 <B 3 l(fl It: 1</1 BK B)3 E> OT S) Z M A <Btn •g o !^i \tl. 1(1) l&r <s- f"4- 1"^- ;0 i:I in> /-l <1> (i)u ,0 l:.iIri. |n>:s ISi- wsr •;'a' a> uu^ 7® F* VI o- rj"a" tfi <s "<;-9 la (Bea -< (tf o ff 3' 3- B> F'¥ .t» (QQ 3- ea E)3 Q- f-^r wj" (1) :r ff>x £: 3s>Js j— 0g B) z u CQ 3© U)ao^ ;n> 1^1 ic-.s" M tB v> 1^1 ^ks' C;. "••••it ?'.. u> ia C) "th1lI B>•^ a. s- (1> 3 7:. u> o c» sr o ii w z m s?" Sa< -I 'r~ (S.) N0. Peti.tioner Shankar LalSoni versus Rsspondsnts itate Govt. of Chhattisearh and others WR5T (S.) OF Petitioner Bhuwan Lal Sahu Respondsnte versus The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PI=TiT!nM -'fi 1 N0 75Sf -W¥r<<tl i 3 '£^ U 5 I'i^i'V |'5aj 'iW'i.fsS &^S: 20i Petitioner Smt. Sandhya Sah' Rssoondents The State Government of Chhattisgarh T PETl' 'S.) N0.7257 OF 200) Petitioner Ramakant Chandrakar versus Respondents The State Govsrnment of Chhattisgarh and another 2- & PETIT10N SS.) OF 200' Patltioner Respondents Versus Tameshwar Prasad Dewangan The State Governmsnt of Chhattisgarh and another Pstitioner Ghanshyam Singh Deshmukh versus Respondents Ths State Government of Chhattisga ana anot y- il 3 i r opT!Tir»Mis i i t i ifc^ 1 '^ i ti=f a !w>~ £UUO Petittoner 0iespondents Bhuvneshv/ar Pras.ad Chandrakar vsrsus The State Government of Ch and another ttisaarh MRIT PPTITinM " '^3"'iLi 3 r'i-. ai ; i^^i'^ | petitioner Jay Kumar Patll versus Resoondents The State Governmsrit of Chhattisgarh and another PET! i.7282 OF 20< Petitioner ifiiy r^aiii Respondent; The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another PETiTiON (S.) N0.72S3 OF 201 Petitioner Lal Singh Dhankar iuenis •'ersus 'he State Governrnent of Chhattlsgarh and another ^.1 Petitionsr Vishnu Prasad Deshmukh ^ Respondents versus T'ne State Government and another t?@iT S^TSTI^?^! J% ^ ^ir^. '7^^^ f^S ?3^ Fj^.i j f°'£;..li 1 l^f-4g I'S.J ItiW,.? A^.i^_wr_^ Petitioner Shekh Arman K4usalman tespondente versus State Govt. of Chhatxisgarh and another y WRIT PET1TION (S.l N0.7297 OF 2006 Petltioner Arjun Singh Sahu versus Respondents The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another PETIT10N (S.) N0.?: Petitioner Hari Shankar Sahu versus Respondents Ths State Governnient of Chhattisgarh and another Rs PetitioRer !T,PETrT!ON (S,1NQJ299 QF 2001 Rameah Kumar Barie versus The State Govsrnmsnt of Chhattisgai and another {S.1 N0.7: sn< idsnts Smt. Budhantin Bai Netam versus The State Government of and another Chhattisgarh WRiT PSTITION (S.5 N0.7: Petittoner Govind Prasad Soni versus Rsspondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Pstitioner Lekh Ram Ss.ht vereus ResBondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRiT (S.1NO,72S1_QI Petitionsr Smt. Nlshi S'nan/a versus Respondents State of ChhaBisgarh snd others '.111 'i^F4] .'S.) N T^j 01 Petltioner Yogeshwar Prasad Ganguiy Ressondsnts State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs tas II- ZUUn< Petitioner i.K.Sharma . versus The State of Chhattisgarh and others (S.5 N0,7279 OF2COI Petitioner i.R.Baranas Respondents "ersus The State of Chhattisgarh and others rTOETmON_!j OF 'etitioner Dwarika Prasad Ratnakar Respondents versus State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs Prssent : IVr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, W.r. B.L.Dembra, Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh and Mr. Ashwan' Shukla, counse! for the petitioner(s). Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Gcvernment Advocate and Ms. Sunlta Jain, Panei Lav/yer for the State/resDondents. ORDER (Passed on 3rd Day of January, 2007) Learnsd counsei appearing for the petitioners as siso for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of !av/ involved in the pressnt batch of writ petltions are squarely covsred by the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhsradwaj ation. Durs and another . <' 2. ln subsequsnt casss, i.e., Writ Pstition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 {Gopesh Kumar Verms 'v's. The State Govt. of Chhsttssgarh and anotheii) and other connected matters, decided by thls Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by ths Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopa! snd t'ne prospsctus of Dipioma in Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenclaturs of the Basic Training institute, i.s., B.T.I. has been c'nanged and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are aiso covered by ths dscision in Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanother) (Supra). 3. For the aforementioned reasons, the v/rit petitions are dispossd of in terms of the dscision of this Court In the mattsr of Yas^vant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verification of 'the fact as to '.ivhether the petltionsrs have acquirsd B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at their own expenses as per the circutars dated 24-12- 'C^B!T 1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether they hs.ve bsen paid advance incrsments or not. No order as to costs. 4. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connectsd writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1 2008 (II) MPJR-CG 96 Gops