1 2025:CGHC:43258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5988 of 2021 * - Amit Kumar Armo S/o Jagannath Singh Armo Aged About 35 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Girls Polytechnic College Koni, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Technical And Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Department Of Technical Education Indravati Bhawan, Block 3, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Govt. Girls Polytechnic College Koni, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner on the post of Technical Assistant from the completion of 8 years of service within stipulated period with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. 10.ii Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.02 14:55:20 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Technician vide order dated 13.09.2013 and even after completion of 08 years, his name has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post i.e. Technical Assistant. He would contend that the representation was made by the petitioner dated 16.03.2017, but till date no decision has been taken by the competent authority. He would submit that though the petitioner was found eligible for promotion, but in absence of sanctioned and vacant post, his name has not been considered yet. He would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 2 and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 2 within a period of the 30 days and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation so made by the petitioner expeditiously strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti