1 2025:CGHC:14014-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 201 of 2025 Gopal Singh Jain S/o Bhanuram Jain Aged About 49 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. Primary School, Kurrutola, Block Antagarh, District South Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (As Per The Impugned Order) (Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive OfÏcer Jila Panchayat, South Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24 .03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.25 10:38:00 +0530 2 General, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2813 of 2017 (Gopal Singh Jain vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and was posted at Govt. Primary School, Kurrutola, Block Antagarh, District South Bastar Kanker (C.G.) under the department of Panchayat. The appellant is discharging his duty with utter sincerity to the satisfaction of his higher authority. No any kind of inquiry is pending nor decided by the competent authority. No any punishment order has been issued against the appellant till date and his entire services records of clean. He also submits that the appellant was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Varg-3 under the department of Panchayat on 01.05.2005 and since then he is working on the said post till 07.02.2022. The services of the appellant was regularized after successfully completion of probation period and was granted the benefits of regular pay scale. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that services of the appellant was governed with the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘Rules of 2012’) which was come into the effect from 17.08.2012 when it was published in the OfÏcial Gazette. He would submit 3 that, as per the aforesaid Services Rules, 2012, the criteria for promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) was 07 years of work experience in feeder cadre and 50% posts of Teacher (Panchayat) was to be filled up by way of promotion and rest of 50% posts was to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. If the promotional posts are not vacant then supernumerary post will be created as per Scheduled III. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondents have not considered the name of the appellant for grant of promotion even after completion of 07 years of his services which is the minimum requirement for promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) as per the services Rules, 2012, whereas the respondents ought to have considered the name of the appellant for promotion just after completion of 07 years of his services. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant 7. That, thereafter the petitioner / appellant approached this Court for seeking a direction of this Court to direct the respondents to consider the name of the appellant for promotion as he was completed the period of 07 years of his services which is the minimum required for promotion. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose off the writ petition with a direction to consider the name of the appellant for promotion strictly in accordance with the Rules and pass an speaking order. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuance of the Court order, the appellant move a representation to the respondents with a request to consider his name for promotion as he has competed more than 07 years of his services, but the respondents 4 have rejected the representation of the appellant vide its order dated 13.06.2017. Thereafter, the appellant again approached before this Court and filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 2813 of 2017, challenging the rejection of the representation order dated 13.06.2017 on the various grounds. The aforesaid writ petition was listed for hearing before this Court on 10.01.2025 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose off the writ petition with an observation that the appellant has now been granted the promotion by order dated 07.02.2022 and the learned Single Judge do not find any illegality in the reason assign by the Chief Executive OfÏce, Jila Panchayat on rejection of the representation of the appellant. He would submit that the appellant is subsequently promoted on the post of Teacher vide order dated 07.02.2022, but it may not be a ground for rejection of the claim of the appellant for promotion with effect from when he was completed the 07 years of his services. The appellant is entitled for promotion with retrospective effect. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.01.2025 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. They further submit that as per order dated 13.06.2017, the appellant’s name did not come in the merit on 31.10.2014 and even thereafter, he could not be promoted. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 5 9. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that this is the second round of litigation. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.12.2016 passed in WPS No. 6650/2016, the appellant preferred his representation before the respondents authority which was rejected by order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the appellant lacks merit and above the appellant the eligible candidates were given promotion as per the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Bharti Tatha Seva Ke Sharte) Niyam, 2012. However, the appellant has now been granted promotion by order dated 07.02.2022 (Annexure R/1 in the writ petition), hence, the learned Single Judge was rightly disposed off the matter. 10. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan