1 2025:CGHC:27572-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 393 of 2025 Smt. Saroj Bhuarya W/o Shri Milind Bhuarya Aged About 56 Years Post- Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, R/o New Khandelwal Colony, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner/ Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Principal Government Hr. Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Pratibha Khaparde Lecturer (L.B.), Office Of The Principal Government Hr. Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.25 18:00:25 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 05.06.2025 (Smt. Saroj Bhuarya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4097 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that appellant is a Lecturer for Hindi Subject who was promoted and posted in the Government Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District - Rajnandgaon, C.G. on 19.06.2012. Respondent No.06 is a Lecturer (LB) for Hindi Subject who was earlier a Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 and only after absorption policy of Teachers serving in Panchayat Department through order issued by School Education 3 Department itself, dated 30.06.2018, got absorbed to the post of Lecturer (LB) in the School Education Department. As per condition-04 of the Absorption Order dated 30.06.2018, the services of Lecturers (LB) in the School Education Department shall be considered only from 01.07.2018 i.e., from the date of absorption, thus the respondent No.06 even though working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 since 2010 in the institution, got appointed to the post of Lecturer (LB) on in the year 2018, whereas the appellant was appointed in the year 2012 on the post of Lecturer, and thus, respondent No.06 was clearly appointed after the appellant and is junior to the appellant in the institution. Till the year 2021, the respondent department considered respondent No.06 as Atishesh/supernumerary Lecturer. On 15.05.2025, the respondent No.04 issued impugned list of supernumerary/Atishesh employees and placed the appellant in the list instead of respondent no.06. While issuing the said list, the respondent No.04 directed that objections, if any, have to be submitted before 16.05.2025 before 12.00 Noon post which no objection shall be entertained, which in actuality was not even a span of 24 hours for making objections. 4. The appellant challenged the said list by way of writ petition i.e., WPS 3904/2025 and learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025, observed that if the respondent authority was really keenly interested to consider objection to be submitted by Teachers, he would have granted sufficient time for the same 4 and further directed the respondent No.03 to "take into consideration objection submitted by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law before issuing final list of posting of Teachers based on rationalization scheme.”. The appellant submitted her objection on 29.05.2025 and the respondent No.03 misinterpreting the legal positions, rejected the representation of the appellant on wrong grounds vide impugned order dated 30.05.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPS No.4097 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider the merit of the case and illegality of the impugned order dated 30.05.2025, and dismissed the writ petition without calling for reply only on the ground that the Respondent No.03 has decided the objection of the appellant. Learned Single Judge failed to consider that the manner in which, the Respondent No.03 has rejected the objection of the appellant and declared her as an atishesh/supernumerary employee and further declared her to be a junior to Respondent No.06 by way of impugned order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) was contrary to the condition no.04 of the order dated 30.06.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the School Education Department with respect to calculation of service period of the Respondent No.06/Lecturer (LB) absorbed from Panchayat Department. He further submits 5 that learned Single Judge failed to consider that appellant is a Lecturer for Hindi Subject who was promoted and posted in the Government Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. on 19.06.2012 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.06 is a Lecturer (LB) for Hindi Subject who was earlier a Shiksha Karmi Grade 01, and only after absorption policy of Teachers serving in Panchayat Department through order issued by School Education Department itself, dated 30.06.2018 (Annexure P-6), got absorbed to the post of Lecturer (LB) in the School Education Department. Learned Single Judge failed to consider that as per condition-04 of the Absorption Order dated 30.06.2018, the services of Lecturers (LB) in the School Education Department shall be considered only from 01.07.2018 i.e., from the date of absorption, thus the Respondent No.06 even though working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 since 2010 in the institution, got appointed to the post of Lecturer (LB) on in the year 2018, whereas the appellant was appointed in the year 2012 on the post of Lecturer, and thus, Respondent No.06 was clearly appointed after the petitioner and is junior to the appellant in the institution. He also submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that till the year 2021 (Annexure P-7), the Respondent Department considered Respondent No.06 as Atishesh/supernumerary Lecturer and the State Government issued the Policy for Rationalization dated 02.08.2024, and as per policy condition 7(C)(3), in case where there are two Lecturers 6 working against the approved post, the junior employee shall be the Atishesh/Supernumerary Employee. Learned Single Judge did not properly consider the fact that as the appellant was promoted to the post of Lecturer in the year 2012, and Respondent No.06 was absorbed on the said post in the year 2018, the appellant was senior to the Respondent No.06. He contended that learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Respondent Authorities have acted in an arbitrary manner without any rhyme and reason and the impugned list dated 15.05.2025 and 30.05.2025 is contrary to law. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 / State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that the appellant has already availed opportunity to raise her objection on 29.05.2025 before respondent No.3, which has been 7 rejected vide order dated 30.05.2025 by giving detailed explanation as to why respondent No.6 is senior to the appellant, respondent No.6 was not placed in the impugned list of supernumerary/atishesh employees issued by respondent No.4, hence, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that there is no illegality and perversity in the order impugned dated 30.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the impugned list of supernumerary/atishesh employees issued by respondent No.4. 9. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ appeal as also with writ petition and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu