1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 298 of 2021 1 - Ganesh Ram Rakesh S/o Radhe Lal Rakesh Aged About 48 Years Posted As T.G.T. Hindi At Eklavya Model Residential School, Taregoan (Jangal) District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, (Naya Raipur), Po And Ps Rakhi, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner-Cum-Director Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Commissioner Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr.Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned advertisement Dated 21.09.2020 (P/1) issued by the office of the Commissioner, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Development Department. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Commissioner-cum-Director, to consider the candidature of petitioner for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi). 10.3 To grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, -2- relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner." 2. Ms. Vanak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner has completed 5 years of service in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.), his name has not been considered for promotion to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT). She would further submit that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be promoted to the post of PGT; therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in an objective manner within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Vanak. He would submit that an advertisement to fill up the post of PGT was issued in the year 2020 through the Deputation and Guest Lecturers, and the posts have been filled up by the department. He would further submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Ms. Vanak, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondents No.2 & 3, and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide it expeditiously strictly as per the applicable rules, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha