1 2025:CGHC:39018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9118 of 2025 1 - Vikram Kumar Patel S/o Shri Radhelal Patel, Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C) Govt. Scheduled Tribe Pre-Matric Boys Hostel, Gopalpur, Block - Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Block- D, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 06-08-2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Respondent No. 2, and prayed the following reliefs in their writ petition:- “(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.03 10:38:00 +0530 2 (ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10.6.2025 (Annexure P/5) respondent No.2/Under Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur and consequently, quash the entire counseling proceedings being conducted pursuant thereto. (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct counseling proceedings for Hostel Superintendent (C) afresh at State level for total 1732 posts including 755 posts on which teachers are working as incharge Hostel Superintendent (C). (iv) That this Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioners including cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2015, to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-D). The petitioner was promoted on 09-06-2022 to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C), and posted at Pre- Matric Scheduled Tribes Boys Hostel, Gopalpur-Rajpur, District Balrampur. Various communications have been made between the Department and the State Government on 13-09-2023 and 27-11-2024. The final gradation list was also published on 05-07-2024 with respect to Hostel Superintendent Grade-C, as on 01- 04-2024. The respondent No.2 issued an order on 10-06-2025 for conducting counselling of the Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C) for the purposes of their posting. By the order dated 10-06-2025, a three-level committee has been constituted by the State Government for the posting of the promoted Hostel Superintendents. The petitioner made his representation on 20-06-2025 and 21-07- 2025 to the respondent No.3, but no action has been taken on the representation till date. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-D) in the year 2015. After 07 3 years of his service, he has been promoted to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C) in the year 2022. The post of Hostel Superintendent is a State Cadre post, and now the respondents are conducting counselling for their posting, district- wise. The gradation list of the petitioner is state-wise, and the entire service conditions are governed at the state level. The State Government has issued an order on 10-06-2025, but has not followed Clause 3.2 of the said order. Clause 3.3 is also violative as the teachers of T-Cadre, who are on deputation, and working as hostel superintendents and working with the department before 2015 on deputation, those institutions are not to be considered as vacant. In C-Cadre, there are 1732 posts of hostel superintendents available, and all the posts of hostel superintendents of C-Cadre are promotional posts. The State Government has given the details of 120 posts of T-Cadre. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any option to choose the convenient place for his posting, and he is being treated as a district-level employee. The petitioner was promoted in the year 2022, but a proper state-level option has not been provided to him. He would refer to the document Annexure P-7, which is the notice dated 21-12-2016, and submit that earlier, there was a state-level counselling, but now, the authorities are conducting the district-level counselling. A total of 977 candidates are in Grade-C; however, the option of 755 posts is not available, in which the teachers T-Cadre are working on deputation. Despite the direction of the State Government that the teachers of T- Cadre, who are on deputation, should be repatriated to their parent department, they have not been repatriated. He would also submit that in a similar situation, in the W.P.S. No. 2785/2023 (Purty Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), decided on 06-11-2024, the coordinate bench of this court has held that the candidate, who have been repatriated to the parent department, cannot claim to be remain posted as In-charge hostel superintendent of Post-Matric Tribal Karmchari Putri Girls Hostel, Raigarh. He would also refer to clause 3.17 of the document dated 05-06-2025, which is the transfer policy of the state, and submit that the state government has cancelled all the deputation w.e.f 05-06-2025. He would also 4 submit that the total sanctioned posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C are 1732, out of which a total of 489 posts are filled and 1243 posts are vacant. Out of 1243 posts, they are not showing the filled posts from the teachers T-Cadre, who are on deputation. Since the posts of hostel superintendents Grade-C are 100% promotional posts, he should be given priority in counselling. 4. Responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel would submit that initially, the candidates are calling for district-level counselling only to rationalise the vacant posts at rural and urban areas. If there is no post available in the district and the candidates are willing to go to any other district, the option should be obtained and recommended to the Divisional Level, and the proposal of the candidates who are willing to go outside of the division should be sent to the State Level Committee. He would further submit that there are a total of 1732 sanctioned posts of hostel superintendent (Grade-C), whereas the counselling is being done for a total of 977 posts, as there are only 977 candidates available for posting, including the petitioner. A total of 120 posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C have been excluded from counselling because the Teachers/Lecturers/Headmasters from T- Cadre and Teacher (LB-T Cadre), who were working as In-charge hostel superintendent even before 2015. The state government has taken a policy decision not to disturb their posting. He would further submit that the decision has been taken to facilitate the candidates who are already working in their districts, and they have the right to choose their convenient place, state-wise, and to make their representations. Since the number of hostel superintendents Grade-D have been promoted to hostel superintendent Grade-C, the guideline is issued on 10-06-2025 for conducting the transparent counselling. No prejudice would be caused by the order dated 10-06-2025, and his service status has not been affected. The petitioner has been called for counselling as per his seniority. It is also submitted by him that the Tribal Development Department of the state issued a circular on 10-03-2015, and Clause 7 of the said circular provided that until the posts of hostel superintendent are filled up by recruitment, the already 5 working hostel superintendents shall be considered on deputation as In-charge. Thus, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings and the documents annexed with the petition by the parties. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that to give benefits to the teachers T- Cadre, who are in charge of the hostel superintendent, clause 3.3 has been provided in the order dated 10-06-2025, by which the promotional benefits of the hostel superintendents of Grade-D for the post of hostel superintendents of Grade-C is curtailed, which affects the 100% promotional post. The places where he is working have also been left open for the option of the hostel superintendents of Grade-C, who have been promoted, but in the counselling, their places are shown to be filled up posts. The submission of the petitioner is not appealing for the reason that the state government, on instructions, submitted that only 977 candidates are available in the state for their posting as hostel superintendent Grade-C, including the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that any promotional avenue is affected by the counselling or keeping the post of hostel superintendent vacant, on which the Teachers/Lecturers/Headmasters of T-Cadre are on deputation and working as In-charge hostel superintendent. A sufficient number of posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C are vacant, and the rights of the petitioner is not prejudiced. Even otherwise, the seniority, pay scale, etc., are not affected by the counselling or the provisions made for the In-charge hostel superintendent. 7. As per the submissions of the parties, it transpires that a total of 1732 posts of hostel superintendent of Grade-C are sanctioned, in which 489 posts are filled up and 1243 posts are vacant. Only 120 posts of hostel superintendents are excluded, in which the teachers/lecturers/headmasters (T-Cadre) are working on deputation even before 2015. If the State Government has framed a policy for those In-charge hostel superintendents who are working on deputation, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary. The order dated 10-06-2025 is not for the promotion to the post of hostel superintendent, but only for the counselling for the posting of the promoted 6 hostel superintendents of Grade-C. 8. The next submission of the petitioner is that the post of the petitioner is a state-level cadre, but the counselling is being done district level, and thereby, the petitioner is deprived of choosing the place of his choice at the state level. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived, in view of the provisions of Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P- 5). It is necessary to quote here Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P-5), which reads as under:- 3-7 जिला स्तर पर पद रिरक्त नहीं होने एवं स्वेच्छा से पदोन्नतित उपरांत संभाग अंतगत अन्य जिले में ाना चाहते उनसे 03 जिलों का विवकल्प प्राप्त कर जिला स्तरीय सविमतित की vuq’kalk के साथ संभाग स्तरीय सविमतित को प्रेवि,त विकया ाए । 3-8 संभाग से बाहर पदस्थापना चाहने वाले अधीक्षकों का प्रस्ताव सीधे राज्य स्तरीय सविमतित को प्रेवि,त विकया ाए । 9. From the contents of clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P-5), it is amply clear that there is no restriction on the hostel superintendent Grade-C to choose the place within the state, and their representation is to be considered by the state-level committee. There is no arbitrariness in it because, for the purposes of rationalization, and for posting of the hostel superintendents in rural and urban areas, it is necessary to do so. If any candidate wants to go to another Division, they may make his/her representation to the State level committee, which will be considered by the said committee. It is nowhere mentioned that they cannot be posted out of the District or Division. Further, from the document annexed with the petition, it transpires that the candidates have been called for counselling as per their seniority. It is not the division-wise seniority list, but it is the state-wise seniority list published as on 01- 04-2024, in which the name of the petitioner is at Sr. No.103. The Annexure P-4 is the gradation list of Hostel Superintendent Grade-C, and their seniority numbers have been taken from the state-wise seniority list. The vacant post has also been displayed in the list issued by the department in the division, and the petitioner has the liberty to make his representation for his posting at another division/district in the state, as provided under Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025. 7 10. The petitioner have also taken shelter of the order dated 06-11-2024 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 2785/2023 (Purty Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby it has been held that the employee, who is on deputation and repatriated to their parent department, cannot claim to be remain there in the post where they were deputed before their repatriation. The facts and considerations of that case are different to the facts and considerations of the present case. In that case, the petitioner had challenged the order of posting and repatriation of the Respondent No. 5 to her parent department, in which the coordinate bench of this Court has held that the concerned officer can be repatriated at any time to his/her parent department to serve in their substantive post at the instance of either of the departments. Here, the issue is different, as the petitioner is claiming that the Teachers, who are working on deputation as In-charge hostel superintendents, should be repatriated and their posts of hostel superintendents should be filled up by the candidates of hostel superintendent Grade-C, by promotion, because the post of hostel superintendent is a 100% promotional post. Therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner by the said order, Annexure P-8. 11. In a similar matter of W.P.S. No. 5958 of 2025 (Vijay Kumar Yadu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), vide order dated 02-07-2025, this court has decided the issue involved in the present case, which are identical and therefore, this Court deem it appropriate, not to take a view other than what has been taken in W.P.S. No. 5958 of 2025, decided on 02-07-2025. 12. Consequently, this Court do not find any merit in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil