Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30198 (CHH)

LAXMAN PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5660/2021 · 2025-08-04

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5660 of 2021 1 - Laxman Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Late Shri Krishna Rai Yadav Aged About 57 Years Assistant Grade Iii, Government High School J.P. Colony, Korba, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner School Education Department, Director Of Public Instruction, 1st Floor, 3rd Block, Indravati Bhawan, Hod Building, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector Korba, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare, Korba, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The District Education Officer Korba, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Block Education Officer Korba, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Sanjay Kumar Sharma Assistant Grade Ii, Posted At Block Education Officer, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Ram Lakhan Yadav Assistant Grade Ii, Posted At Government Higher Secondary School, Girls High School, Katghora, Block Education Officer, Katghora, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) 9 - Suresh Kumar Soni Assistant Grade-Ii, Posted At District Education Officer, Korba, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate -2- For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “i). That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ / order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to give seniority to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade II. ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set aside / quash the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by respondent no.5. iii) That, any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 2. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is senior to the private respondents but they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 30.06.2021 and his name has not been considered though he is senior. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. He would refer document vide Annexure R/5 dated 10.05.2023, which would show the date of joining, date of regularization and the chart is reproduced herein below : 3 कर्मचारी क नार्म संस्था क नार्म कलेक्टरी दरी परी निनायुक्तिक् निथि आकस्मिर्मक नाधि कर्मचारी र्म वेना निनारीण निथि भृ#त्यु क पद परी निनायुधिर्म हो&ना क' निथि भृ#त्यु क पद परी निनायुधिर्मनि हो&ना क' निथि सं वेरिरीष्ठ श्री रीर्मलेखना युदवे शा० होई क/ ले नाखरी 09.12.1989 14.12.1992 27.09.2006 27.09.2006 श्री संजयु क र्मरी शार्म कयु. जिजले थिशाक्षा अधिकरी क&रीबा 01.12.1987 02.12.1990 14.03.2008 14.03.2008 श्री संरीशा क र्मरी सं&ना कयु जिजले थिशाक्षा अधिकरी क&रीबा 11.01.1990 17.01.1993 24.09.2008 24.09.2008 श्री लेक्ष्र्मण प्रसंद युदवे कयु. जिजले थिशाक्षा अधिकरी क&रीबा 09.04.1990 18.04.1993 14.10.2008 14.10.2008 4. He would contend that the present petition is misconceived and deserves tobe dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The chart as referred by Mr. Gupta would show that the private respondents are senior to the petitioner and therefore, their names were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. 7. Taking into consideration the fact indicated in letter dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure R/5), I am not inclined to entertain this -4- petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the respondent authorities would consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion, if he is found eligible. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha