1 2025:CGHC:45748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9320 of 2025 1 - Jairam Baghel S/o H.R. Baghel Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Lecturer (Gazette Class-Ii), Government Higher Secondary School, Kukrel, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction (DPI), Indravati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Joint Director Public Education Division, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - The District Education Officer District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 5 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 6 - The Commissioner Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - The Collector (Tribal Development) District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Rudrapratap Dubey, Advocate. For State : Shri Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.09. 202 5 1. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is claiming promotion on the post of Principal, however in the gradation list of Lecturers (Gazetted) Class-II, the date of his promotion as Lecturer is wrongly mentioned as 14.03.2017 whereas the actual date is 02.12.2014 and therefore the petitioner may be permitted to make his detailed representation for correction of date of promotion on the Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.12 11:41:38 +0530 2 post of Lecturer in the gradation list and in such eventuality, the respondent authorities may be directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner at the earliest. 2. Learned counsel for the State though opposes the petition on merits, however he does not have any objection if such a direction is given to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated time period. 3. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make his detailed representation before the respondent No.2 along with copy of this order for correction of date of his promotion on the post of Lecturer in the gradation list and in such eventuality, the respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, so made, in accordance with law on its own merits as per service records of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order to respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder