NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5739 of 2018 1 - Smt. Pratibha Singh W/o Shri Ajay Singh Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Lecturer, Posted At Higher Secondary School, Khairbar Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralay, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Kamlesh Singh S/o Late Shri Kedar Singh Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Lecturer, Posted At Higher Secondary School, Khairbar Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate along with Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.5 : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case. REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4. 10.3 Any other relief, which Hon'ble court deems fit and proper of the case, may be allowed. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade -1 under respondent No.4 vide order dated 17.07.2008. He would contend that in the merit list, the name of the petitioner was at serial No.4, whereas, the name of respondent No.5 was at serial No.2. He would further contend that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 joined services on 28.07.2008 but the petitioner joined services prior in time to respondent No. 5. He would also submit that respondent No.4 vide order dated 05.07.2018 fixed the seniority of respondent No.5 above the petitioner. He would state that as the petitioner joined services prior in time to respondent No.5, he should be placed above respondent No.5. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the respondent No. 5 was at serial No.2 in the merit list, therefore, his seniority has been fixed above the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’) deals with seniority. 6. Rule 12(1) of the Rules of 1961 deals with the seniority of direct recruits and promotees. Sub-rule 1 states that the seniority of the persons directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective of the date of joining. 7. Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules, 1961 is reproduced herein below:- “Rule 12(1)-Seniority of Direct Recruits and Promotees.-(a) The seniority of persons directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective of the date of joining. Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were appointed vide order dated 17.07.2008 and they joined their services on 28.07.2008 but the name of respondent No.5 was at serial No.2 in the order of appointment, whereas the name of petitioner was at serial No.4, therefore, respondent No.5 has rightly been placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha