1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 204 of 2023 1 - Gulab Chand Bhaskar S/o Shri Abhay Ram Bhaskar Aged About 53 Years Presently Working Assistant Teacher (Science) (T-Lb Cadre) At Swami Aatmanand English Medium School, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.O. And Ps Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 26.11.2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to determine the seniority of the petitioner from the initial date of her appointment as Assistant Teacher/Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and not from the date of joining at the transferred place of posting, as the District Education Officer, Raigarh has issued a gradation list contrary to the gradation list prepared by the Divisional Joint Director, Bilaspur Division, wherein the petitioner’s seniority has rightly been reckoned from her initial appointment in the year 2006 at High School Khadgaon, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh; that the petitioner was subsequently transferred on her own request from Block Dharamjaigarh to Block Gharghoda within Raigarh district; that pursuant to the Notification dated 30.06.2018 issued by the Secretary, Department of School Education, employees who had completed eight years of service as on 01.07.2018 in Panchayat & Urban Administration were to be absorbed in the School Education Department and accordingly the petitioner’s services were absorbed vide order dated 10.08.2018; that despite calculating eight years of service for absorption from the petitioner’s initial appointment, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally considered the date of joining in the transferred place for determining seniority in the gradation list as on 01.04.2022; that the respondents have failed to appreciate that the 3 promotional post of ‘Teacher’ is a divisional-level post and that the seniority of Assistant Teachers is required to be maintained at the divisional level; and that, in the absence of any rule in the School Education Department providing that seniority shall be reckoned from the date of joining in the transferred place of posting, the petitioner’s seniority ought to be determined from her initial date of appointment. Hence this petition. 2. Hence this petition. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent District Education Officer, Raigarh to consider the seniority of the petitioner from the date of initial date of of Assistant appointment/joining on the post Teacher/Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and further direct the respondent District Education Officer, Raigarh to prepare a fresh gradation list to the post of Assistant Teacher/ Shiksha Karmi Grade-III with calculating the seniority from initial date of appointment; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the seniority from initial date of appointment/joining on the post of Assistant Teacher/ Shiksha Karmi Grade-III of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Teacher. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider representation submitted by 4 petitioner and/or grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 2006 and posted at High School Khadgaon, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh; that on his request his services were transferred from Dharamjaigarh Block to Gharghoda Block within Raigarh District vide order dated 30.06.2010, where he joined on 08.07.2010. As per the Notification dated 30.06.2018 issued by the Secretary, Department of School Education, employees completing eight years of service as on 01.07.2018 in Panchayat & Urban Administration were to be absorbed in the School Education Department and accordingly the petitioner was absorbed vide order dated 10.08.2018. Despite calculating eight years of service for absorption from the petitioner’s initial date of appointment, the District Education Officer, Raigarh issued a gradation list as on 01.04.2022 for Assistant Teacher (L.B.) wherein the petitioner’s seniority was illegally reckoned from the date of joining in the transferred place instead of the initial date of appointment. The petitioner submitted representations seeking correction of seniority, as the next promotional post of ‘Teacher’ is a divisional- level post and therefore seniority must be maintained at the divisional level; that under Rule 12(2)(a) & (b) of the Chhattisgarh 5 Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961, seniority is to be determined from the date of appointment and not from the date of transfer, and no rule of the School Education Department authorizes seniority based on the date of joining in the transferred place. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 419, has held that in the absence of a specific rule, seniority among persons holding similar posts in the same cadre must be determined on the basis of length of service and not on any fortuitous circumstance, thus, the petitioner is entitled to seniority from his initial date of appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in reckoning the petitioner’s seniority from the date of joining at the transferred place of posting instead of the initial date of appointment is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the governing service jurisprudence, as the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in 2006 and the respondents themselves considered his initial appointment date for calculating eight years of service for absorption into the School Education Department in terms of the Notification dated 30.06.2018. He submits that having accepted the initial date of appointment for absorption, the respondents cannot adopt a contradictory yardstick for determining seniority; that the promotional post of Teacher is a divisional-level post and hence seniority of Assistant Teachers must necessarily be maintained at 6 the divisional level, not on a district-wise basis; that under Rule 12(2)(a) & (b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961, seniority is to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from the date of transfer, and no rule in the School Education Department authorizes seniority to be fixed on the basis of joining in the transferred place. It is stated that the petitioner has also submitted representations seeking correction of seniority which remain unaddressed and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 419, has categorically held that in the absence of a specific rule, seniority among persons in the same cadre must be determined by length of service and not by any fortuitous circumstance, thereby establishing that the petitioner is entitled to seniority from the initial date of appointment. Hence, the petition deserved to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the gradation list has been prepared strictly in accordance with the administrative instructions and prevailing departmental practice, whereby seniority of an employee who is transferred on his own request is reckoned from the date of joining at the transferred place of posting, as the transfer on request amounts to a fresh placement in the new seniority unit. He submits; that the petitioner’s transfer from Dharamjaigarh to Gharghoda Block was purely on his own volition and therefore he cannot claim continuity of seniority from the previous block; that 7 absorption into the School Education Department under the Notification dated 30.06.2018 does not automatically confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim seniority from the initial appointment, since absorption and seniority operate in separate spheres governed by different criteria. It is stated that Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 pertains to transfers between departments and has no application to intra-district or intra-departmental transfers, particularly those made on request; that the petitioner’s case is distinguishable from M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey as the said judgment applies only where no specific administrative practice exists, whereas in the present case the respondent department has consistently maintained seniority based on the date of joining in the transferred unit and the petitioner’s seniority has been fixed uniformly and in parity with similarly situated employees, leaving no scope for judicial interference. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 2006 and was posted in Dharamjaigarh Block, District Raigarh. Subsequently, pursuant to the circular issued by the State Government dated 01.07.2018, the services of the 8 petitioner, along with other similarly situated Shiksha Karmis, were absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Assistant Teacher. The order of absorption in respect of the petitioner was issued on 10.08.2018 but the absorption was given effect from 01.07.2018, i.e., the date on which the State Government brought all Shiksha Karmis into the School Education Department. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that while preparing the seniority list after absorption, the respondents have not counted his seniority from the date of his initial appointment in 2006, but have instead fixed his seniority from 01.07.2018, the date on which absorption took effect. According to the petitioner, since he has been in continuous service from 2006, his seniority ought to be reckoned from the date of his original appointment as Shiksha Karmi and not from the date of absorption. However, from the record and the relevant circulars of the State Government, it is evident that the absorption of Shiksha Karmis into the School Education Department was done as a fresh induction into a different cadre, and the absorption was uniformly given effect from 01.07.2018 for all Shiksha Karmis across the State. The State Government has also clarified in the circular dated 01.07.2018 that seniority in the School Education Department shall be determined from the date of absorption and not from the date of initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi, because prior to absorption 9 the employees were part of a separate service/cadre governed by different rules. 9. The material placed on record further shows that the gradation list has been prepared uniformly by taking 01.07.2018 as the date of entry into the School Education Department for all absorbed teachers, and no distinction or individual benefit has been conferred upon any person. The petitioner is, therefore, not singled out or discriminated against; rather, he has been treated similarly to all other Shiksha Karmis who were absorbed under the same scheme. 10. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that when employees belonging to one cadre are absorbed into another cadre, seniority in the new cadre ordinarily commences from the date of absorption, unless there is a specific statutory provision to the contrary. No such provision or rule has been brought to the notice of the Court that would mandate counting of seniority from the petitioner’s initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. The petitioner’s past service may be counted for certain limited purposes such as pension or other benefits, if the rules so provide, but seniority in the new cadre must align with the date of absorption. Thus, the action of the respondents in reckoning the petitioner’s seniority from 01.07.2018 and not from his initial date of appointment in 2006 is consistent with the Government circular, uniformly applicable norms, and established principles of service 10 law. The petitioner alone cannot claim a departure from the uniform policy, and he has failed to demonstrate any illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions in the preparation of the gradation list. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no infirmity in the action of the respondents in fixing the petitioner’s seniority from 01.07.2018, being the uniform date of absorption of all Shiksha Karmis into the School Education Department. The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of statutory rules, arbitrariness, or discrimination in the preparation of the gradation list. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha