1 2025:CGHC:38764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5309 of 2021  Arvind Kumar Ahirwar S/o Shri D.P. Ahirwar, Aged About 53 Years Posted As Associate Professor (Architecture), Government Engineering College, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Skill Department, Technical Education And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd And 4th Floor, Block-3, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyher Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate direction/writ directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f. 2009 as the petitioner fulfills all the qualifications and condition for the same. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Architecture) in Government Engineering College SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.06 14:55:55 +0530 2 vide order dated 29.10.1993. He was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer in the year 1999, and the senior pay scale was granted vide order dated 22.01.2004 with effect from 29.10.1999. She would further submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader/Associate Professor under the career advancement scheme with effect from 29.10.2004 vide order dated 22.02.2007. She would also submit that the petitioner has been working on the post of Reader/Associate Professor and according to the service rules, i.e. the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Gazetted) Services (Teaching Cadre Engineering College) Rules, 2005 (for short “Rules, 2005”), the petitioner was entitled to get promotion in the year 2009. She would further contend that the Rules, 2005, has been replaced with the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre Engineering College) (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short “Rules, 2014”), and the State Government has sanctioned certain posts including the post of Reader and Professor in the Engineering Colleges vide order dated 07.08.2014. She would contend that the petitioner has made various representations before the respondent authorities, but till date, no decision has been taken. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that the instant petition filed by the petitioner is hit by delay and laches. He would further submit that the petitioner is claiming promotion from the year 2009, and the present petition was filed in the year 2021 without explaining the delay. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Jindal vs. Rajni Mahajan and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 533. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 3 placed on the record. 5. It is true that the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2021, claiming promotion from the year 2009, and in para 7, the petitioner has pleaded that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought notice of this Court to the Rules, 2014, and according to the Rules, 2014, the petitioner is eligible for promotion. 7. Be that as it may, at this juncture, the petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 2, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation so made by the petitioner, preferably within a period of 120 days. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant