1 2025:CGHC:20379-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 293 of 2025 Kalpana Subramanayam W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Subramanyam Aged About 52 Years R/o. Qtr. No. Sf-589, Cseb Colony, Korba East, P.S. - Korba Civil And Revenue, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S. - Rakhi, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chief Engineer (Pro) C.G.S.P.D.C.L., Korba, East, Police Station- Korba, Civil And Revenue District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary Vidhyut Grih Vidyalaya, Prabandhan Samiti Korba East, C.G.S.P.D.C.L., Korba, Easte Police Station And District - Korba, (C.G.) 4 - The Principal Vidhyut Grih Higher Secondary School No. 1, Korba East, Police Station And District- Korba, (C.G.) 5 - The Head Master Vidhyut Grih Primary School, Korba East No. 1, Police Station- Korba, District- Korba (C.G) 6 - Smt. Sushma Lokare Lower Division Teacher, Vidhyut Grih Primary School Korba No-1, Korba East, Police Station And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh, Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh, Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 2423 of 2013 (Kalpana Subramanyam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / appellant herein by way of W.P.(S) No. 2423/2013, has challenged the amended gradation list dated 17.10.2012 according to which the respondent – Sushma Lokare was placed at S.No.9 and petitioner is at S. No.15. According to the pleadings of the said petition, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Teacher by the respondent No.3 on 21.11.1991 and joined her service on 22.11.1991. The dispute for consideration before the writ Court was as to whether the placement of respondent – Sushma Lokare above the petitioner in the amended gradation list was legally 3 justified or not. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant / writ petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unauthorized, unwarranted, illegal unjust, and discriminatory & malafide therefore, hit by the postulates of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. After following selection process, the appellant was appointed in the post of Lower Division Teacher vide order dated 20.11.1991 and she immediately joined her service on 22.11.1991, thereafter the service of the appellant was continued till further orders vide order dated 22.05.1992 and by the order dated 31.12.1998, the service of the appellant was regularized. Increment was granted to the appellant vide order dated 24.12.2004 on completing 12 years of service, computing his seniority from 20.11.1991. In the provisional gradation list dated 13.10.2010, the name of appellant was mentioned at serial No. 15 showing her date of appointment as 31.12.1998 and above the appellant, respondent No. 6 was placed at serial No.10 whereby name her appointment date is mentioned as 06.03.1992. The appellant made representation for fixing her seniority from her initial date of appointment and joining i.e. 22.11.1991 in place of 31.12.1998 and upgrading her position in the gradation list accordingly and the provisional gradation list was corrected vide 4 order dated 19.01.2011. Within few months by order dated 05.05.2011, the gradation list dated 19.01.2011 was directed to keep in abeyance and vide order dated 20.04.2012 again the wrong gradation list was published placing the respondent No. 6 at serial No. 10 and petitioner at serial No. 15, mentioning the joining date of respondent No. 07.09.1990. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that vide order dated 24.12.2004, benefit of kramonnati after completion of 12 years of services was given to the appellant from 22.11.2003 whereas benefit of kramonnati after completion of 12 years of services was given to the respondent No.6, on 06.03.2004, which is never disputed or challenged by the respondent No.6. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the writ Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 directed the respondent State to place the details of date of joining of the appellant and respondent No.6, whereby the District Education Officer, Korba submitted on affidavit that joining of respondent No.6 as per record is 06.03.1992. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respective respondents oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that respondent No. 6 – Sushma Lokhare was appointed on 30.08.1990 and she joined service on 07.09.1990. It is also evident that the appellant was appointed in the post of Lower Division Teacher vide order dated 20.11.1991 and she joined her service on 22.11.1991. Thus, respondent No.6 was senior on account of her date of joining. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra