1 2025:CGHC:41948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5958 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Yadu Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Pre-Matric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Kumarda, Block- Chhuriya, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Brijpal Kumhar S/o Shri Sukhnandan Kumhar Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Pre - Matric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Balod, Block- Baloda, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3 - Thandaram Kahra S/o Shri Ramlal Kahra Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Post - Matric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Champa, Block- Bahmnidih, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Sourabh Giri Goswami S/o Shri Hemenat Giri Goswami Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Pre - Matric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Suhela, Block- Simga, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Yugal Kishore Verma S/o Shri Kuleshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Pre - Matric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Amit Verma S/o Late Shri Girja Shankar Verma Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Pre - Matric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Palari, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Ramgopal Verma S/o Shri Balaram Verma Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Pre - Matric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Hathband, Block-Simga, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 8 - Sukhdev Soni S/o Shri Yashwant Soni Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Post - Matric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Seepat Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Rahul Sahu S/o Shri Tarachand Sahu Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Scheduled Caste Boys Ashram, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Tulesh Singh S/o Late Shri Mahesh Singh Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Govt. Pre - Matric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Bandhabazar, Distt. Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Block- D, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 02-07-2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Respondent No. 2, and prayed the following reliefs in their writ petition:- “(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 3 (ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P/5) respondent No.2/Under Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur and consequently, quash the entire conseling proceedings being concluded pursuant thereto. (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct counseling proceedings for Hostel Superintendent (C) afresh at State level for total 1732 posts including 755 posts on which teachers are working as incharge Hostel Superintendent (C). (iv) That this Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioners including cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Hostel Superintendents (Grade-C) after their promotion vide promotion orders dated 09-06-2022, 22-07-2022, 30-06-2023 and 10-06-2025, respectively. The respondent No. 2 issued an order on 10-06-2025 for conducting counselling of the Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C) for the purposes of their posting. In para 3.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025, the hostels/ashrams, where the teachers (T-Cadre) are working as Hostel Superintendents on deputation for the last so many years, shall not be deemed vacant. The petitioners, including other candidates, made their representation on 13-06-2025 to the respondent No. 3, but no action has been taken on the representation till date. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-D) in the year 2015- 16. After 5 years of their service, they have been promoted to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C). The post of Hostel Superintendent is a State Cadre post, and now the respondents are conducting counselling 4 district-wise. The gradation list of the petitioners is state-wise, and the entire service conditions are governed at the state level. The State Government has issued an order on 10-06-2025, but has not followed Clause 3.2 of the said order and all the candidates who have been promoted in the years 2022 and 2023 are called along with the candidates who have been promoted in the year 2025, and their seniority is not considered. Clause 3.3 is also violative as the teachers of T-Cadre, who are on deputation, and working as hostel superintendents and working with the department before 2015 on deputation, those institutions are not to be considered as vacant. In C-Cadre, there are 1732 posts of hostel superintendents available, and all the posts of hostel superintendents of C-Cadre are promotional posts. The State Government has given the details of 120 posts of T-Cadre. Therefore, the petitioners do not have any option to choose the convenient place for their posting, and they are being treated as district-level employees. The petitioners have been promoted in the year 2022, but a proper state-level option has not been provided to them. He would refer to the document Annexure P-7, which is the notice dated 14-07-2016, and submit that earlier, there was a state-level counselling, but now, the authorities are conducting the district-level counselling. A total of 977 candidates are in Grade-C; however, the option of 755 posts is not available, in which the teachers T- Cadre are working on deputation. Despite the direction of the State Government that the teachers of T-Cadre, who are on deputation, should be repatriated to their parent department, they have not been repatriated. He would also submit that in a similar situation, in the W.P.S. No. 2785/2023 (Purty Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), decided on 06-11-2024, the coordinate bench of this court has held that the candidate, who have been repatriated to the parent department, cannot claim to be remain posted as In-charge hostel superintendent of Post-Matric Tribal Karmchari Putri Girls Hostel, Raigarh. He would also refer to clause 3.17 of the document dated 5 05-06-2025, which is the transfer policy of the state, and submit that the state government has cancelled all the deputation w.e.f 05-06-2025. He would also submit that the total sanctioned posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C are 1732, out of which a total of 489 posts are filled and 1243 posts are vacant. Out of 1243 posts, they are not showing the filled posts from the teachers T- Cadre, who are on deputation. Since the posts of hostel superintendents Grade-C are 100% promotional posts, they should be given priority in counselling. It is also submitted that one Mr. Govind Sahu, who is at Sr. No. 398 of the gradation list, has been given preference then Mr. Deepesh Kumar, who is at Sr. No. 2 in the gradation list, and thus, the seniority is also affected, and he has no option to choose the place on preference. 4. Responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel would submit that initially, the candidates are calling for district-level counselling only to rationalise the vacant posts at rural and urban areas. If there is no post available in the district and the candidates are willing to go to any other district, the option should be obtained and recommended to the Divisional Level, and the proposal of the candidates who are willing to go outside of the division should be sent to the State Level Committee. He would further submit that there are a total of 1732 sanctioned posts of hostel superintendent (Grade-C), whereas the counselling is being done for a total of 977 posts, as there are only 977 candidates available for posting, including the petitioners. A total of 120 posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C have been excluded from counselling because the Teachers/Lecturers/Headmasters from T-Cadre and Teacher (LB-T Cadre), who were working as In-charge hostel superintendent even before 2015. The state government has taken a policy decision not to disturb their posting. He would further submit that during the pendency of the petition, some of the petitioners have appeared in the counselling held on 16- 06-2025, and they have been posted at the place of their choice. He would 6 further submit that the decision has been taken to facilitate the candidates who are already working in their districts, and they have the right to choose their convenient place, state-wise, and to make their representations. Since the number of hostel superintendents Grade-D have been promoted to hostel superintendent Grade-C, the guideline is issued on 10-06-2025 for conducting the transparent counselling. No prejudice would be caused by the order dated 10-06-2025, and their service status has not been affected. It is also submitted by him that the Tribal Development Department of the state issued a circular on 10-03-2015, and Clause 7 of the said circular provided that until the posts of hostel superintendent are filled up by recruitment, the already working hostel superintendents shall be considered on deputation as In-charge. Thus, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings and the documents annexed with the petition by the parties. 6. The main grievance of the petitioners is that to give benefits to the teachers T-Cadre, who are in charge of the hostel superintendent, clause 3.3 has been provided in the order dated 10-06-2025, by which the promotional benefits of the hostel superintendents of Grade-D for the post of hostel superintendents of Grade-C is curtailed, which affects the 100% promotional post. The places where they are working have also been left open for the option of the hostel superintendents of Grade-C, who have been promoted, but in the counselling, their places are shown to be filled up posts. The submission of the petitioners is not appealing for the reason that the state government, in their reply, submitted that only 977 candidates are available in the state for their posting as hostel superintendent Grade-C, including the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that any promotional avenue is affected by the counselling or keeping the post of hostel superintendent vacant, on which the Teachers/Lecturers/Headmasters of T-Cadre are on 7 deputation and working as In-charge hostel superintendent. A sufficient number of posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C are vacant, and the rights of the petitioners are not prejudiced. Even otherwise, the seniority, pay scale, etc., are not affected by the counselling or the provisions made for the In- charge hostel superintendent. Clause 7 of the order dated 10-03-2015 (Annexure R-4) issued by the State Government, provided that till the regular appointment, the In-charge hostel superintendent, who was on deputation, shall discharge their duties on deputation. Clause 7 of the order dated 10-03- 2015 reads as under:- 7- vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl foHkkx ds vUrxZr lapkfyr vkJe “kkyk esa dk;Zjr~ v/kh{kd&lg&iz/kku ikBd ds in dk ukedj.k vc iz/kku ikBd gksxk vkSj ;g Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx dks gLrkarfjr gksxkA tgka vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl foHkkx esa v/kh{kd dk in i`Fkd ls Lohd`r gS ,oa ftl ij orZeku esa HkrhZ dh dk;Zokgh izfdz;k/khu gS] ogka in Hkjs tkus rd orZeku esa dk;Zjr~ O;fDr v/kh{kd ds in ij ;FkkfLFkfr izfrfu;qfDr@izHkkj ij ekuk tk;sxkA 7. As per the submissions of the parties, it transpires that a total of 1732 posts of hostel superintendent of Grade-C are sanctioned, in which 489 posts are filled up and 1243 posts are vacant. Only 120 posts of hostel superintendents are excluded, in which the teachers/lecturers/headmasters (T-Cadre) are working on deputation even before 2015. If the State Government has framed a policy for those In-charge hostel superintendents who are working on deputation, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary. The order dated 10- 06-2025 is not for the promotion to the post of hostel superintendent, but only for the counselling for the posting of the promoted hostel superintendents of Grade-C. 8. The next submission of the petitioners is that the post of the petitioners is a state-level cadre, but the counselling is being done district level, and thereby, the petitioners are deprived of choosing the place of their choice at the state level. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is 8 misconceived, in view of the provisions of Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025. It is necessary to quote here Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025, which reads as under:- 10.7 ftyk Lrj ij in fjDr ugha gksus ,oa LosPNk ls inksUufr mijkar laHkkx varxZr vU; ftys esa tkuk pkgrs muls 03 ftyksa dk fodYi izkIr dj ftyk Lrjh; lfefr dh vuqla’kk ds lkFk laHkkx Lrjh; lfefr dks izsf"kr fd;k tk,A 10.8 laHkkx ls ckgj inLFkkiuk pkgus okys v/kh{kdksa dk izLrko lh/ks jkT; Lrjh; lfefr dks izsf’kr fd;k tk,A 9. From the contents of clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025, it is amply clear that there is no restriction on the hostel superintendent Grade-C to choose the place within the state, and their representation is to be considered by the state-level committee. There is no arbitrariness in it because, for the purposes of rationalization, and for posting of the hostel superintendents in rural and urban areas, it is necessary to do so. If any candidate wants to go to another Division, they may make his/her representation to the State level committee, which will be considered by the said committee. It is nowhere mentioned that they cannot be posted out of the District or Division. 10. Further, it is also submitted by the State Counsel that some of the petitioners have appeared in the counselling and they have been posted at their desired place. He would refer to the documents Annexure R-2, by which some of the petitioners have been posted. Once, the petitioner appeared in counselling, opted for the place of posting and was posted there by the State Government; they have no grievance with the action of the state government, therefore, the writ petition on their behalf is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the state would refer to the document of R-2 and submit that the petitioners, No. 1, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7 and No. 10 have appeared in counselling and they have been posted at the place of their choice. The appearance of some of the petitioners in counselling has not been denied by the petitioners, except saying that they have made their 9 representation/objection on 20-06-2025. Once the petitioners have appeared in the counselling and they have been posted as per their choice, they cannot challenge the counselling or their posting or else they should not appear in the counselling. If they have any grievance with their posting, they should have challenged their posting order specifically. 11. Another ground raised by the petitioners is that the seniority of the candidates has not been considered while calling them for counselling. He would refer to pages 10 and 17 of the Rejoinder. He would submit that one Mr. Govind Ram Sahu is placed in the gradation list at Sr. No. 398, and he has been called at Sr. No. 7 in the counselling, whereas Mr. Deepesh Kumar, who is at Sr. No. 2 in the gradation list, has been called at Sr. No. 7 in the counselling. Thus, there is a gross violation of Clause 3.2 of the order dated 10-03-2025, which provides that “izLrko rS;kj djrs le; vk;qDr }kjk tkjh Js.kh ^l* ,oa ^n* v/kh{kdksa dh ofj"Brk lwph dk vuqlj.k@ikyu fd;k tk;A” the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable because the Clause 3.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025, itself provides the priority which is to be given to the husband/wife, employees who are suffering from serious ailment like Cancer, Kidney disease, heart disease etc. and thereafter differently abled employees. From perusal of pages 10 and 17 of the documents annexed with the Rejoinder of the petitioners, it transpires that priority was given to the hostel superintendents Grade-C on the husband/wife ground. In column No. 10 of Sr. No. 01 to 07 of the list annexed at page No. 17 of Rejoinder, clearly demonstrate that due to priority given to husband and wife, the employees who may be junior, have been given priority. From Sr. No. 08 onwards, the seniority is in their ascending order, which is reflected in column No. 2 of the said document. Clause 3.3 is also necessary to be reproduced here, which reads as under:- 3.3 ”’kkldh; lsod ifr@iRuh ,oa fpfdRlk dkj.kksa xaHkhj chekjh dSalj tSls VfeZuy rFkk vR;ar xaHkhj chekjh] fdMuh [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k Mk;fyfll 10 djokus ;k vksiu gkVZ ltZjh ds dkj.k fu;fer tkap djkuk vko’;d gks vkSj orZeku inLFkkiuk ds LFkku ij ,slh lqfo/kk miyC/k u gks rks ftyk esfMdy cksMZ dh vuqla’kk ij lacaf/kr dh inLFkkiuk fpfdRlk lqfo/kk okys LFkku ij fd;k tk ldsxk rFkk fnO;kax “kkldh; lsodksa fo/kok] ifjR;Drk ,dy efgyk dh inLFkkiuk gsrq izkIr vkosnuksa ij izkFkfedrk nsrs gq, lfefr }kjk fopkj fd;k tkosA lkFk gh foHkkxh; Nk=kokl@vkJeksa esa foxr dbZ o"kksZa ls izfrfu;qfDr ij dk;Zjr f’k{kd (Vh&laoxZ ,oa f’k{kk foHkkx ls o"kZ 2015 ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr) dh inLFk laLFkkvksa dks fjDr ugha ekuk tkosxkA 12. The petitioners have also taken shelter of the order dated 06-11-2024 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 2785/2023 (Purty Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby it has been held that the employee, who is on deputation and repatriated to their parent department, cannot claim to be remain there in the post where they were deputed before their repatriation. The facts and considerations of that case are different to the facts and considerations of the present case. In that case, the petitioner had challenged the order of posting and repatriation of the Respondent No. 5 to her parent department, in which the coordinate bench of this Court has held that the concerned officer can be repatriated at any time to his/her parent department to serve in their substantive post at the instance of either of the departments. Here, the issue is different, as the petitioners are claiming that the Teachers, who are working on deputation as In-charge hostel superintendents, should be repatriated and their posts of hostel superintendents should be filled up by the candidates of hostel superintendent Grade-C, by promotion, because the post of hostel superintendent is a 100% promotional post. Therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioners by the said order, Annexure P-9. 13. The submission of the petitioners that by the transfer policy dated 05-06- 2025, the state government has cancelled all the attachments w.e.f. 05-06- 2025, and thereby, the attachment of the Teacher (T-Cadre) who are working as In-charge hostel superintendent should also be sent back to their parent department. It is not the case here that the In-charge hostel superintendents 11 are on attachment. They are on deputation, and there is a substantive difference in attachment and deputation. Therefore, this argument of the petitioner also did not help them. 14. Consequently, this Court do not find any merit in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil