1 2025:CGHC:7237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5261 of 2018 Atma Ram Patel S/o Ramdayal Patel Aged About 44 Years Working As Shiksha Karmi Grade Iii (Assistant Teacher Panchayat), At Govt. Primary School, Saroli, Block- Manpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., R/o Village- Iragaon, Post- Nedgaon, Tahsil- Manpur District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantrlay, New Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- The Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Pancjhayat Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4- Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Block- Manpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Manpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 5271 of 2018 Bhakta Ram Mandavi S/o Late Shri Shiva Ram Mandavi, Aged About 44 Years Working As Shiksha Karmi Grade Iii (Assistant Teacher Panchayat ) At Government Primary School, Gotulmunda Block Manpur, District Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, R/o Village and Post Bhaosa, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralay, New Mantralay, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3- Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Block Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5- Block Education Officer, Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Kale, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have claimed seniority from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 23.07.1998. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III on 23.07.1998. The order of appointment was challenged before the concerned Collector and the same was quashed vide order dated 10.02.1999. However, they were reappointed on 09.03.1999. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed on 23.07.1998 to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III, therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have reckoned their seniority from their initial date of appointment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S. P. Kale, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners have claimed seniority from 23.07.1998 by filing these writ petitions in the year 2018 and the delay part has not been explained properly. He would further submit that the appointment order dated 23.07.1998 was challenged before the concerned Collector and appointments of the petitioners were quashed. He would also submit that the petitioners were reappointed vide order 09.03.1999 and they have been granted seniority from that date, therefore, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed vide order dated 23.07.1998, and they have claimed seniority from that date by filing these writ petitions in the year 2018 whereas in para-7, the petitioners have stated that there is no delay in filing these writ petitions. 7. The appointment orders dated 23.07.1998 were quashed by the concerned Collector, and later on, they were appointed afresh vide order dated 09.03.1999 and they have been granted seniority from 09.03.1999. The petitioners accepted the appointment order dated 4 09.03.1999 without any protest. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners approached this Court at a belated stage and they have not disclosed the fact that their appointment orders dated 23.07.1998 were quashed by the concerned Collector, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, these petitions are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judge Nadim