1 2025:CGHC:38185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1433 of 2022 Ramgovind Kashyap S/o Sudru Kashyap, Aged About 29 Years Caste Bhatra, R/o Nagarnar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar, District Jangdalpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Education Officer, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shishupal Sahu Posted As Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Middle School, Chandela, Block Lohandiguda, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6 - Keshav Das, Posted As Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Middle School, Kaknarf, Block Lohandiguda, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey 2 Order on Board 01/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for promotion to the post of Teacher (L.B.) from the date his juniors were promoted. 2. Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-3 vide order dated 31.07.2010, and his services were absorbed in the School Education Department with effect from 01.07.2019. He would further submit that a gradation list was published in the year 2021, effective from 01.04.2021, in which the petitioner’s name appears at serial no. 1632, whereas the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appear at serial nos. 1756 and 1757 respectively. 3. It is contended that despite being juniors, respondents No. 5 and 6 were promoted to the post of Teacher (L.B.) vide order dated 07.02.2022. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be considered for promotion from the said date. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the promotion order of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was erroneously issued and thus, same been cancelled vide order dated 25.02.2022. He contends that the petitioner’s claim will be considered at the appropriate stage as per rules. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the promotion orders of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have already been cancelled by the competent authority on 25.02.2022, no case is made out to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s claim for retrospective promotion from 07.02.2022. 7. It is a settled law that promotion is not a vested right of a government servant, but is subject to eligibility, availability of post, and administrative discretion. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim