1 WA No. 698 of 2025 2025:CGHC:49123-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 698 of 2025 Smt. Rashmi Verma W/o Shri Sanjay Chandravanshi Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Hostel Superintendent (C), Pre-Matric Girls Hostel (Middle), Shankargarh, Block- Shankargarh, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Near Railway Line, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Appellant (s) 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.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.25 17:58:01 +0530 2 WA No. 698 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 25/09/2025 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 18/07/2025 (Annexure- A-1) passed in WPS No. 8066/225 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to according to their status before the Writ Court. 2. The facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Hostel Superintendent, Grade-D, on 02-01-2017 and is presently working as Hostel Superintendent, Grade-C, following promotion on 10-06-2025. On 13-09-2023, the State Government issued a letter providing that teachers serving as Hostel Superintendents in Ashram Schools and Hostels under the SC/ST Development Department shall be deemed on deputation/in-charge until formal filling of the posts. The gradation list of Hostel Superintendents (Grade-C) as on 01-04-2024 was published on 05-07-2024, and on 10-06-2025, respondent No. 2 issued an order for conducting counseling of Hostel Superintendents (Grade-C) for postings. Paragraph 3.3 clarified that hostels/ashrams where teachers (T-Cadre) have been working as in-charge for several years shall not be deemed vacant. The petitioner submitted representations on 15-06-2025 and 20-06-2025 to respondent No. 3, but no action was taken. Subsequently, WPS No. 8066/225 was filed and dismissed, leading to this appeal. 3 WA No. 698 of 2025 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and mechanical, disregarding the petitioner’s seniority, service record, and medical condition. Counseling for Hostel Superintendent (C) violated the Gazette Notification dated 28.09.2011, which mandates promotion from Grade- D after five years. Out of 1,732 sanctioned posts, counseling was conducted only for 977, excluding 755 posts held by in-charge teachers, contrary to promotion rules and Finance/GAD circulars. Repeated directives for repatriation (2019–2025) were ignored. The appellant, having served over seven years in core scheduled areas, was posted post-counseling without regard to rotation policy or her medical issues, including IVF treatment, TB, miscarriages, and knee replacement, causing undue hardship and affecting her service prospects. The actions are therefore arbitrary, illegal, and violative of her rights, and relief is prayed in her favor. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Writ Appeal is without merit. Clause 3.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025 merely provides a framework for postings and does not affect promotional rights, which remain 100% promotional. Sufficient vacant posts exist, and the appellant’s seniority, pay scale, and promotion prospects are unaffected. The counseling process, including district, divisional, and state-level considerations, was in accordance with clauses 3.7 and 3.8, which allow representations for postings outside the district or division. Deputation differs from attachment, and repatriation of T- Cadre teachers is not mandated. Similar issues were upheld by a coordinate bench in WPS No. 5958/2025 (Vijay Kumar Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh) on 02-07-2025. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit. 4 WA No. 698 of 2025 5. We have heard learned counsel and perused the record. 6. The appellant’s main grievance was that clause 3.3 curtailed the promotional rights of Grade-D Hostel Superintendents in favor of in-charge T- Cadre teachers, and that district-level counseling restricted her choice of postings at the state level. She further contended that deputationists’ posts should be repatriated to allow promotion. 7. The learned Single Judge held that these contentions were misconceived. Counseling dated 10-06-2025 was conducted for postings only and did not affect promotions. Of 1,732 sanctioned posts, 1,243 were vacant, ensuring sufficient posts for promotion. Only 120 posts, occupied by T-Cadre teachers prior to 2015, were excluded. Framing a policy for in-charge superintendents cannot be considered arbitrary. 8. Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 permit submission of representations for postings outside the district or division, ensuring that no candidate is arbitrarily deprived of choice. Evidence on record shows that several petitioners were posted to their desired locations. Alleged deviations from seniority are justified by clause 3.3, which accords priority to seriously ill employees, differently-abled employees, or spouses of employees. The appellant’s medical claims lacked sufficient evidence, and the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 does not mandate repatriation. 9. The precedents relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable. In WPS No. 2785/2023 (Purty Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh), the issue pertained to 5 WA No. 698 of 2025 repatriation to the parent department, whereas the present matter concerns deputation and postings. This issue was also considered in WPS No. 5958/2025, where the Court upheld the legality of counseling under identical circumstances. 10. The learned Single Judge correctly found that the counseling process, including district, divisional, and state-level considerations, was conducted in a lawful and rational manner. The appellant’s seniority, pay scale, promotional prospects, and rights were unaffected, and there was no arbitrariness or illegality. 11. Accordingly, the dismissal of WPS No. 8066/225 was fully justified. The appellant has not demonstrated any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference. 12. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri