1 2025:CGHC:41776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8629 of 2025 1 - Amar Pratap Singh S/o Shri Sharda Sharan Singh Aged About 60 Years Posted As Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Podi, Block- Ramanujnagar, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The Joint Director School Education Department, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Surajpur Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Shri Prakash Kerketta Posted As Headmaster, Middle School Kuruwa, Block Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Gabrela Kujur Posted As Headmaster, Boys Middle School, Shivnanadanpur, Block- Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur, (C.G.) 8 - Shivmangal Singh Posted As Headmaster, Middle School, Amgawn, Block Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Sushma Netam Posted As Headmaster Middle School Podi, Block Ramanujnagar, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For State : Shri SP Kale, Addl. Advocate General along with Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 19.08. 202 5 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that juniors to the petitioner have been promoted on the post of Headmaster whereas the petitioner has not been promoted for which he has made representation to the respondent No.5 on 06.01.2025 which was forwarded to the respondent No.4 on the same day, however, till date 2 his representation has not been decided. He would further submit that on 02.05.2025 the petitioner moved another representation to the respondent No.5 but till date the same has also not been considered and therefore a direction may be issued to respondents to decide his pending representations in accordance with law within stipulated time frame. 2. Learned counsel for the State does not have any objection if such a direction is given to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within stipulated time period. 3. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by the petitioner and also considering the fact that representation of the petitioner is pending since 06.01.2025, without entering into the merits of the case the respondent No.4 is directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner keeping in view the recommendation made by the respondent No.5 on 06.01.2025, in accordance with law on its own merits and applicable rules and circulars governing the field within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order to respondent No. 4&5 within two weeks. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder