1 2025:CGHC:54192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3937 of 2025 Order reserved on 05/08/2025 Order delivered on 06/11/2025 1 - Narayan Prakash Tiwari S/o Late Bhisham Prasad Tiwari Aged About 61 Years Occupation - Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School Khairbanakala, District- Kawardha, R/o- 74/98- Anand Vihar Colony, Kawardha, P.S.- Kotwali Kawardha District- Kawardha (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Public Education Directorate Through - Director, First Floor C Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For Respective Intervenors : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Rahul Jha, Mr. N Naha Roy, Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, and Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.07 18:09:55 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the promotion order dated 30-04-2025, passed by the Respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner is deprived of promotion to the post of Principal, whereas his juniors have been promoted. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, The impugned promotion order dated 30/04/2025 issued by respondent no. 1 be quashed and also in the light of the recruitment rule 2019 petitioners promotion be considered taken his seniority as a headmaster middle school. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue fresh advertisement and provide reasonable opportunity to the participate in the recruitment process. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Subject matter in brief in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Upper Division Teacher on 12-01-1987, and after about 11 years of his continuous service, he was promoted to the post of Head Master, Middle School Cadre, vide order dated 25-08-1998. When the State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated on 01-11-2000, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner remained discharging his duty as Head master till 29-06-2010, and on that day, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer. On 09-06-2023, the gradation list of Head Masters was issued as on 01-04-2022, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at Sr. No. 45. On 27-05-2024, another gradation 3 list was issued by the department as on 01-04-2024, in which also the name of the petitioner finds place at Sr. No. 36. Subsequent to that, the gradation list of Head Master, Middle School, E-Cadre, has been issued by the department on 29-10-2024 in which it has been mentioned that since the Rule 15(1) of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (in short "the Rules of 2019") has been declared ultra vires, in the order dated 09-03-2023, passed by Hon'ble Division bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, the petitioner's name was dropped from the gradation list. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was served on the post of Head Master from 1998 to 2010, and he was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 29-06-2010, but despite his seniority, his name is not there in the gradation list dated 29-10-2024. The services of the Headmaster/Principal/Lecturer are governed by the Chhattisgarh School Education Gazetted Service (School Level Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (in short "the Rules of 2008"). Schedule 2 of the Rules of 2008 provides that for the post of Principal, 25% posts are to be filled by Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 through a limited examination, and 75% posts are to be filled by promotion from Lecturers. In these 75% posts, 65% posts will be filled by limited examination, and 35% posts are to be filled by promotion from the Headmaster of Middle School. The said promotion avenue was reiterated by the notification dated 22-05-2014 issued by the State Government, by which the Chhattisgarh School Education (Gazetted) 4 (School Level) Service, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014 (in short "the Rules of 2014") were framed. According to the Rules of 2014, for the promotion to the post of Principal, 25% posts shall be filled from Lecturers/Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Lecturer Panchayat) through a limited departmental examination, and 75% posts shall be filled by promotion from regular Lecturers by the department. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide notification dated 05-03-2019 (wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as 05-05-2019), the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (in short "the Rules of 2019") have been issued. As per Schedule 2 of the Rules 2019, 25% of the posts of the Principal shall be filled by promotion from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post Graduate) of which 70% shall be filled from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post Graduate) of E-Cadre, and 30% posts shall be filled from E (LB) Cadre. 4. Further that the Rules of 2019 were challenged in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in which the State had filed their reply and stated that the Head Master (Middle School) has also been included as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Principal. The juniors to the petitioner may be promoted ahead of the petitioner, and therefore, the provision of granting a separate quota for promotion is ultra vires. The posts of Head Master (Middle School) and Lecturer have the same pay scale and the same qualifications, and both are Class-II Gazetted posts. In the W.P.S. No. 5 3286/2021 and a batch of writ petitions, the State had filed its reply that the seniority in the Head Master and earlier promotion to the post of Lecturer are to be taken care of while further promoting of their promotion. The W.P.S. No. 502/2022 is decided on 09-03-2023, and the "explanation" of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 has been declared ultra vires and it has been directed that till the fresh explanation under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 is introduced, the qualifying service of promoted Lecturers from the post of Head Master (Middle School) (Post Graduate) shall be taken from their appointment as Head Master (Middle School). In view of the direction of W.P.S. No. 502/2022, the gradation list of Lecturers is published on 29-10-2024, in which the name of the petitioner is not there, and he has been deprived of his promotion to the post of Principal. As per the Rules of 2019, the petitioner falls under the category of Head Master (Middle School), but he is working as a Lecturer, and treating him as a Lecturer, he has not been considered for promotion, despite that his name is at Sr. No. 901 in the seniority list. 5. Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in the year 2008, the Rules of 2008 were framed for promotion to the post of Principal High/Higher Secondary School. A total of 1266 posts were sanctioned, and 25% of the total posts were to be filled by direct recruitment, and 75% posts were to be filled by promotion. It was clarified that 25% of posts of Principal will be filled by Shiksha Karmi Grade-I through limited examination, and 75% will be filled by promotion of lecturers in the department. When the list of lecturers is 6 exhausted, 65% of the posts of Principal will be filled by limited examination, and 35% will be filled through promotion from Head Masters of Middle School. Thereafter, the Rules of 2014 came and the percentage of quota remained intact; however, it was clarified that 25% posts shall be filled from Lecturers/Shiksha Karmi Grade-I through limited departmental examination, and 75% posts shall be filled by promotion from regular lecturer by the department. In the Rules of 2014, there were no promotional avenues for Headmasters. Subsequently, the Rules of 2019 came into force and again the promotional channel for Head Masters is provided, and it was explained that 10% posts shall be filled by direct recruitment through limited examination of the lecturers working in Government Schools/lecturers working with Panchayat/lecturers working in urban bodies. 65% posts shall be filled by promotion of the lecturers, in which 70% posts shall be for lecturers of E-Cadre and 30% posts for lecturers E (LB)-Cadre. If a sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available in the feeding cadre in the E-Cadre, the posts shall be filled by promotion of the E(LB) cadre and vice versa. Further, 25% of posts shall be filled by promotion of Head Master Middle School (Trained Post Graduate) of which 70% posts shall be filled from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post Graduate) of E-Cadre and 30% posts shall be filled from E(LB) cadre. If a sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available in the feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled by promotion of the E(LB) cadre and vice versa. 6. She would further submit that in Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019, there 7 was an explanation clause that prescribed the procedure for counting the eligibility for promotion. The said Rule 15 was challenged in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 before the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court, which was decided on 09-03-2023. By the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 and other batch of writ petitions, the explanation clause of the Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 is hold ultra vires and the state government was directed to re-frame the explanation of Rules 15 of the Rules of 2019, and till the fresh explanation under rule 15(1) of the Rules of 2019 is framed, qualifying service of promoted lecturers from the post of Head Master (Middle School) (Post Graduate) shall be taken from their appointment as Head master (Middle School) (Post Graduate). After the declaration of explanation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 ultra vires, the gradation list was issued on 29-10-2024, and thereafter, the promotion order to the post of Principal was issued on 30-04-2025. In that gradation list, the Head Masters, who had opted for Lecturers, have been totally kept away from consideration and their names have not been included in the gradation list. It is mentioned in the gradation list dated 29-10-2024 that the gradation list is issued in accordance with para 75 of the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 and another batch of writ petitions. 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not challenging the vires of the Rules of 2019, and he claimed his personal right to consideration of his seniority on the post of Lecturer and Head Master (Middle School). The entire reply of the State is about the vires of the Rules of 2015, and no specific reply on the allegation levelled by the petitioner in his 8 writ petition. They filed the reply about their legislative competence, which is not the subject matter of the present writ petition. The fresh explanation in the Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 has not been framed till date and the order that till the re-framing the explanation of Rules 15 of the Rules of 2019, qualifying service of promoted lecturers from the post of Head Master (Middle School) (Post Graduate) shall be taken from their appointment as Head master (Middle School) (Post Graduate) is violated. Without framing a fresh explanation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019, the gradation list is issued, striking down the name of the petitioner and similarly situated lecturers. 8. It is further submitted that another W.P.S. No. 5217/2019 is decided by the Hon'ble division bench of this Court on 01-07-2025, in which also the declaration of explanation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019, as held in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, order dated 09-03-2023, is upheld. In W.P.S. No. 5217/2019, the promotion order dated 30-04-2025 was challenged; however, the Hon'ble Court has held that the individual claim would not be adjudicated in the present petition (in W.P.S. No. 5217/2019). Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming his seniority and promotion to the post of Principal. 9. Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Additional A.G., appearing for the respondent/State, vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner's side and submits that the Rules of 2019 superseded the earlier rules and it is a unified rule. Rules 14 and 15 of the rules of 2019 provided for promotional avenues for the candidates and eligibility criteria. Schedule-IV is appended with the rules 14 and 15, 9 and the entry No. 9 of Schedule-IV provides the eligibility criteria for promotion from the post of Lecturer/Head Master (Middle School) (Trained Post Graduate) to the post of Principal, and 5 years of teaching experience is made necessary. The Lecturer and Head master are of the same grade and same pay scale, and both are the feeder cadre of the Principal. In Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019, the cadre of the post is categorised into two, i.e., E-Cadre and T-Cadre. The petitioner belongs to E-Cadre and is not concerned with T-Cadre. The quota for its strength has also been fixed as per column 8 of the Schedule II, i.e. 10%, 65% and 25% respectively. The petitioner comes under the 65% category. Since the quota for each cadre has been fixed, the promotions have also been made as per the quota fixed under the Rules of 2019. The gradation list has not been challenged, but the entire order of promotion has been challenged. In the gradation list issued on 29-10-2024 itself, it has been mentioned that the said list is issued in compliance with the direction given in the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022. He would further submit that the W.P.S. No. 5217/2019 has also been decided in the same issue, and he comes under group 3. All the issues which have been raised in the present petition have also been raised in the earlier petitions, and the same facts and grounds of challenge. All the issues are settled by the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court. In para 10 of the order dated 09-03-2023, passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, the issue raised in that writ petition was clear, which includes the issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition. The petitioner challenges the 10 equivalence that was granted to the lecturers and the head masters. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has decided the issue of equivalence in para 59 of the same order. In para 62 of the order, another judgment of the Tilak Ram Mandavi case has been discussed. Tilak Ram Mandavi's case is also followed by this judgment. Thereafter, the Rules of 2014 and 2019 came into existence. The qualifying service of promoted lecturers is 5 years, which will be considered as per the explanation of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 2019, till the new explanation is enacted. 10. He would further submit that Schedule II of the Rules of 2019, the State Government has maintained the quota as per the entries made in Sr. No. 22 and 25. The number of posts has been bifurcated into their sanctioned strength. Qualifying service of promoted lecturers from the post of Headmaster Middle School shall be taken from the appointment as Headmaster Middle School Post Graduate. In all the gradation lists, they have clearly mentioned that in compliance with the court order, the gradation lists are being issued. In the gradation list dated 17-10-2024, there is a note appended at the bottom of the list, that the qualifying service is counted as per the order passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022. In another petition, W.P.S. No. 5217/2019, the issue has again been decided, vide order dated 01-07-2025. There are 3 groups of challenges in different writ petitions. In the third group, the same grievance has been raised with respect to the lecturers. The gradation list was also under challenge in that writ petition, which is also in the present petition. 11 11. The claim of the petitioner is that the period spent as a head Master should be included in the period spent as a lecturer. The order of the Hon'ble Division bench is that it should be only for qualifying service. Therefore, under the strict compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division bench, the gradation list has been prepared. The order passed by the Hon'ble Division bench is practically implemented. On 29-10-2024, the gradation list is published as of 01-04-2023. In this gradation list, the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 has also been complied with, and the gradation list is revised. 12. It is also submitted that the petitioner has challenged the promotion list Annexure P-1, which includes 1478 persons, and they have taken objection that all the 1478 persons are the necessary parties to the petition because they have accrued their right and interest by the order of promotion dated 30-04-2025. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed an application on 15-07-2025 for the amendment of the cause title. Those persons are junior to the petitioner, and they are necessary parties to the petition. Out of 100 persons, 56 persons are not in the list of promotion. Out of 56 persons, 03 persons have already died. 30 are retired persons, and they have been retired in the year 2022. 13 persons have not been promoted, though their names are in the list. There are different gradation lists for lecturers, lecturers (LB) and Head Masters. The petitioner is not affected by the gradation list of the Headmaster. Therefore, the maximum persons shown in the application is not the necessary party 12 to the petition. The place of the petitioner in the gradation list is Sr. No. 1124. The promotion has been made up to Sr. No. 1039. Hence, none of the juniors of the petitioner is promoted. If the petitioner is challenging the entire promotion list, all the persons are necessary parties to the petition. Further, the petitioner has retired on 30-06-2025; this petition has become infructuous. After retirement, his name cannot be considered for DPC. 13. Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Mr. Raghvendra Verma and Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the respective intervenors, have supported the petitioner and have submitted that on the basis of a faulty seniority list issued on 29-10-2024, the promotion order dated 30-04-2025 has been issued, and the juniors to the petitioners have been promoted. Without complying with the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 3286/2021 (decided along with W.P.S. No. 502/2022) and without framing a fresh explanation in Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 2019, the state government has issued the gradation list and promotion order. The intervenors are the Lecturers who are also deprived of the promotion to the post of Principal, and the substantial rights of the petitioner as well as the intervenors are affected. 14. Mr. Alok Bakshi, Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Mr. Rahul Jha, Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respective intervenors opposed the petitioner and have submitted that no specific grounds have been taken in the petition for quashing of the order dated 30-04-2025, the claim of the petitioner is only with respect to the Lecturer E-Cadre, 13 however the entire list of promotion is withheld due to the interim order passed in the petition. The petitioner himself has not made any specific pleading with respect to the branch under which he is claiming the benefit of promotion, as there are three categories of Lecturers. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been claiming seniority since 1998 from the date when he joined the post of Head Master, which he cannot claim. The qualifying service and seniority are entirely different. It is also submitted that the order of the gradation list or promotion order does not affect the petitioner in any manner, as he already has the qualifying service of 5 years on the post of Lecturer. The grievance of the petitioner is against the gradation list dated 29-10-2024, but he has not challenged the said gradation list in his writ petition, and as such, he has no legal right to challenge the consequential promotion order dated 30-04-2025. It is very clear from the quota fixed under the Rules of 2019 and the Schedule appended there to that the petitioner cannot be allowed to jump from his own category of Lecturer to the category of Head Master Middle School. In the instant petition, the petitioner claims entitlement to promotion from the post of Lecturer, whereas he wants his seniority to be counted from the post of Head Master Middle School, which is impermissible. They would further submit that in the W.P.S. No. 4231/2024, there was an interim order of stay passed on 29-07-2024 directing the state that the Lecturers shall not be considered for the promotional post in light of Schedule II of the Rules of 2019, for which the Head Masters are entitled to get promotion. Subsequently, the names of Lecturers have been removed 14 from the gradation list, and a separate list of the gradation of Head Masters was prepared, and the W.P.S. No. 4231/2024 was dismissed as having become infructuous, vide order dated 13-02-2025. In the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has clearly said that the period of working on the post of Head Master would be counted only for the purposes of counting the qualifying period for being eligible for promotion, which is of 5 years. It is further submitted that the gradation list was issued on 29-10-2024, but the petitioner has not challenged the said gradation list and only challenges the promotion order dated 30-04-2025. Presently, the petitioner has retired on 30-06-2025, and he is beyond the zone of consideration. 15. No one appears on the other intervention applications. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition. 17. The claim of the petitioner in the present petition is that his seniority should be counted from the date when he joined on the post of Head Master and his placement should be made accordingly in the gradation list of Lecturers. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer in the year 2010, and at that time, the Rules of 2008 were applicable, and he was promoted to the post of Lecturer under the then-existing Rules of 2008. The relevant provisions of the Rules of 2008 are necessary to be noticed here:- 15 S.N. Name of Post No. of Post Percent of Post to be filled Appointing Authority Direct Recruitment By Promotion By Transfer 1. Principal High/Higher Secondary School 1266 25% 75% - 25% of posts of Principal will be filled by Shiksa Karmi Grade 1 through limited examination and 75% will be filled by promotion of lecturers in the department. When the list of lecturer is exhausted 65% of post of Principal will be filled by Limited Examinations and 35% will be filled through promotion from Head Masters of Middle school. 18. Thereafter, the Rules of 2014 came into force and the feeder post of the Principal has been modified, which reads as under:- S.No. Name of Service Total Number of Posts Percentage of Posts to be filled in Remarks Direct Recruitment [See Rule 6(1)(a)] By Promotion of member of the service [See Rule 6(1)(b)] By Transfer of persons from other service [See Rule 6(1)(c)] 1. Principal High/Higher Secondary School 1266 25% 75% - 25% posts shall be filled from Lecturer/Shiksha Karmi Grade-I [Lecturer (Panchayat)] through limited departmental examination and 75% posts shall be filled by promotion from regular Lecturer by the department. 19. Then the Rules of 2019 came into existence w.e.f. 05-03-2019, and the earlier rules are superseded by these Rules of 2019. Rule 6 provided for the method of recruitment, and Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 provided for appointment by promotion and conditions of eligibility for promotion, which are also necessary to be noticed here, which reads as under:- 16 “6. Method of recruitment.- (1) Recruitment to the service, after the commencement of these rules, shall be made by the following methods, namely:- (a) By direct recruitment through selection (competitive examination /interview) and Limited Departmental Examination; (b) By promotion of members of the service; (c) By transfer/deputation of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services as may be specified in this behalf; (d) By absorption of person/persons who hold in such services and serve on any equivalent salary/post in any Government service. (2) The number of persons recruited under clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage shown in Schedule- II of the number of duty posts, as specified in Schedule-1. (3) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling any particular vacancy or vacancies in the service, as may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment and the number of persons to be recruited by such methods, shall be determined on each occasion by the Appointing Authority in consultation with the Commission/Government. (4) At the time of recruitment to the service the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and instructions issued from time to time, 17 under this Act by the General Administration Department of the Government shall apply. (5) The newly appointed teachers will be included in E-(LB)/T-(LB) cadre seniority list on direct recruitment to the service. 14. Appointment by promotion.- (1) There shall be constituted a Committee consisting of the members mentioned in Schedule- IV, for making a preliminary selection for promotion of eligible candidates: Provided that under this sub- rule, for the purpose of constitution of the committee, provisions of Section 8 of Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) shall also be applicable. (2) The committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding 1 (one) year. (3) Every promotion shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 and as per model roster and the instructions issued by the General Administration Department of the Government from time to time. (4) Certification by the Appointing Authority-The Appointing Authority shall endorse on the promotion order, to be issued by him, a certificate to the effect that he has complied with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Aaraksnan) Adhiniyam 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 and the instructions issued in the light of the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed by the State Government and that he has taken full cognizance of the provisions 18 of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act. 15. 15. Conditions regarding eligibility for promotion.- (1) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (2), the committee shall consider the cases of all persons, who on the first day of January of that year have completed such number of years of service, (whether officiating or substantive), on the posts from which promotion is to be made, as specified in column (3) of Schedule-IV and are within the zone of consideration in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2). Explanation- Method of computation for eligibility of promotion- The calculation of the period of qualifying service on the 1 January of the relevant year in which the Departmental Promotion Committee/Scrutiny Committee is convened, shall be counted from the calendar year in which public servant has joined the feeder cadre/part of service/pay scale of the post and not from the date of joining of the cadre/part of service/pay scale of the post. (2) (i) In such cases where promotion is to be given on seniority-cum-fitness basis or on seniority basis leaving unsuitable candidate, there will be no grounds for consideration for all categories. Proposals of such number of public servants shall only be considered as per seniority that shall be sufficient for filling the existing posts in each category and number of expected vacant posts due to retirement/promotion during one year. (ii) In such cases where promotion is to be made on merit-cum-seniority basis, the area of consideration shall be four more than two times of the total vacant posts. If sufficient number of Government servants in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available for promotion then the area of consideration may be extended up 19 to 7 times of the total vacant posts and filling up of reserved posts may be made from the persons belonging to reserved category for the above mentioned area of consideration. The Committee shall consider to fill the vacancies existing under each category in the said area of consideration and the anticipated vacancies on account of retirement and promotion in the course of one year. (3) To fill up the unexpected vacancies during the said duration in addition to the expected vacancies under sub-rule (2), two public servant or upto 25% of number of public servant included in the select list, which ever is more, shall consider the name of public servant with requisite number for each cadre for the purpose of inclusion of his name. (4) Promotion shall be made as per Reservation Roster prescribed by the Government. (5) Other provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 and the orders issued by the General Administration Department of Government from time to time shall be applicable for promotion.” 20. Schedule II has been appended in the Rules of 2019, disclosing the total number of posts, quota fixed for various feeder cadres and bifurcation of the posts. The entry Nos. 18, 22, and 25 are relevant in the present petition, which are reproduced herein below:- S.No. Name of Service/ Post Total number of duty posts Percentage of the number of duty posts to be filled in Remarks E T Direct Recruitment [See Rule 6(1)(a)] By Promotion [See Rule 6(1)(b)] By transfer/ deputation of persons from other services [See Rule 6(1)(c)] 20 18. Principal 2591 1898 10% 90% - The emergent vacancies as on 1st January every year shall be bifurcated follows; (1) 10% posts shall be filled by direct recruitment through limited examination of the lecturers working in Government schools/ lecturers working with Panchayat/lecturer working in urban body. (2) 65% posts shall be filled by promotion of the lecturers, in which 70% posts shall be for lecturers of E- cadre and 30% posts for lecturers E (L.B.) cadre. If sufficient number eligible candidates are not available in feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled by promotion of E(LB) cadre and vice-versa. (3) 25% of the posts shall be filled by promotion of Head Master Middle School (Trained graduate) of which 70% posts shall be filled from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post graduate) of E-cadre and 30% posts shall be filled from E (L.B.) cadre. If sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available in feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled promotion of E(L.B.) cadre and vice-versa. Note: Posts of the T/T (L.B.) cadre shall also be filled as per procedure described in point (1), (2) and above (3). 21 22. Lecturer 27363 18650 50% 50% - Out of the vacancies generated as on 1st January, every year, 50% shall be kept for direct recruitment and remaining vacancies, shall be filled by promotion out of which 50% shall be filled up by the promotion of E- cadre and 50% with promotion of E (LB)- cadre. If sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available in feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled by promotion of E (L.B.) cadre and the same process shall be adopted for T/T (LB) cadre. This promotion shall be on the subject- wise posts approved in the setup. 25. Headmaster (Middle School) 6365 6084 - 100% - Out of the vacancies generated on 1st January every year, 50% shall be filled by the promotion of E- cadre and 50% shall be filled by promotion of E.(L.B.) cadre. If sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available in feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled by promotion of E (L.B.) cadre and the same process shall be adopted for T/T(LB) cadre. 21. Schedule IV of appended to the Rules of 2019, is also appended for the feeder post of Principal and the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Principal. The relevant entries in the Schedule IV are entries No. 9, 14 and 15, which are as under:- 22 S.No. Name of service or post from which promotion is to be made Minimum Experience period for eligibility for the post. Name of service or post on which promotion is to be done Member of Departmental Promotion Committee 9. Lecturer/Head Master (Middle School) (Trained Post Graduate) 05 years Teaching experience Principal (1) Chairman, Public Commission or Member nominated by him- Chairman (2) Secretary, School Education Department- Member (3) Director, Public Instruction- Member (4) Deputy Secretary/ Under Secretary, School Education- Member Secretary 14. Teacher/ Head Master Primary School (Trained Post Graduate) 05 years Lecturer (1) Director, Public Instruction/Officer nominated by him- Chairman (2) Joint Director/Deputy Director- Member (3) Assistant Director (Establishment)- Member Secretary 15. Teacher/ Head Master Primary School (Trained Graduate) 05 years Head Master (Middle School) (1) Joint Director (Divisional Office)- Chairman (2) District Education Officer – Member (3) Principal, DIET- Member (3) Deputy Director (Divisional Office)- Member Secretary 22. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 by the Hon'ble Division bench of this court, the explanation of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 2019 has been declared ultra vires and the State Government is directed to reframe the explanation of Rule 15(1) of the rules of 2019 and till fresh explanation under Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 2019 is framed, qualifying service of promoted Lecturers from the post of Head Master (Middle School) (Post Graduate) shall be taken from their appointment as 23 Head master (Middle School) (Post Graduate), therefore, his seniority shall also be taken from his appointment on the post of Head Master and according to his seniority, his placement shall be done in the gradation list of Lecturers and he shall be given promotion to the post of Principal. The issue with regard to the counting of qualifying service for promotion to the next higher post and counting of service for seniority on the present promoted post and earlier post from which the candidates are promoted has been considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022 and the order dated 01-07-2025 passed in W.P.S. No. 5217/2019. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant consideration of these two judgments which decided the issue:- Para 10, 13, 17, 59, 61, 62 and 75 of WPS No. 502 of 2022 (order dated 09-03-2023). - “*WPS No.3286/2021 (Satyadev Verma & 08 others Vs. State): *WPS No.4603/2021 Girish Tamrakar & 06 ors Vs. State): 10. In above two writ petitions, petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department. Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher and then Head Master (Primary School) and lastly as Lecturer. Order of promotion of petitioners as Head Master was challenged by some similarly situated employees by filing writ petition, which came to be allowed. Petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was allowed, order of the High Court was set aside and matter was remanded back for fresh hearing after granting opportunity to petitioners. After remand, writ petition came to be dismissed and promotion order of petitioners herein as Head Master was restored. In these writ petitions, 24 petitioners have sought relief that Entry No.9 of Schedule- IV under Rules 14 & 15 of the Rules of 2019 and Entry No.18 of Schedule-II under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2019 be declared ultra vires; respondents be directed to compute qualifying service of Lecturers and Head Masters (Middle School) from the date of attaining pay-scale of that cadre or to compute service rendered by petitioners as Head Master (Middle School) for the purpose of seniority on the ground that in the Rules of 2019 posts of Lecturer and Head Master (trained graduate) have been made equivalent and feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Principal. *WPS No.1569/2022 ( Lalit Kumar Koshley & another V. State): 13. Petitioners in this writ petition were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher and thereafter, they were promoted as Upper Division Teacher (UDT), Head Master (Middle School) and Lecturer. Petitioners are aggrieved by equivalence granted to Head Masters with Lecturers and keeping them in feeder post for promotion to the post of Principal by fixing ratio of 65% out of total 90% promotional posts of Principal reserved for promotion from Lecturers (trained post -graduate) and 25%, out of total 90% posts, reserved for promotion to the post of Principal from Head Masters (Middle School) [trained post- graduate]. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought that insertion of post of Head Master (Middle School) E-Cadre and Lecturer (LB) at par with Lecturer (E-Cadre) in Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019 be declared ultra vires. * WPS No.3431/2021 (Domar Singh Yadav & 21 ors V. State) • WPS No.3432/2021 (Hansraj Sonpipre & 07 ors V. State) • WPS No.3437/2021 (Poshan Kumar Dewangan & 18 ors V. State) 17. Petitioners in these writ petitions were initially 25 appointed as Assistant Teacher and thereafter they were promoted from time to time and presently holding post of Lecturer. They are aggrieved by decision of the State Government making post of Head Masters (Middle School, trained post-graduate) equivalent to the post of Lecturer and feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Principal at Entry No.9 under Schedule-IV and Entry No.18 under Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019. Educational qualification for the post of Head Master (Middle School) is graduate, whereas for the post of Lecturer it is Post- graduate. Lecturers are posted in high schools and higher secondary schools. Head Masters (Middle School) are posted in Middle Schools. Seniority of Head Masters is maintained at District Level, whereas seniority of Lecturers is maintained at State level. Lecturers and Head Masters (Middle School) are made equal for promotion to the post of Principal. Head Masters (Middle School) who could not be considered being juniors in cadre, by way of new Rules will march-over Lecturers and they will be directly promoted to the post of Principal and therefore, the Rules of 2019 to the extent of giving equivalence to Head Master (Middle School) with Lecturer is violative to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. They sought relief that Schedule-IV making Head Master (Middle School) and Lecturer equivalent be declared ultra vires and the words 'Head Master' be deleted from Entry No.9 of Schedule IV for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal. Further declaration of remark column in Entry No.18 of Schedule-II for promotion of 25%, out of total 90%, promotional posts of Principal from Head Masters (Middle School) (trained post-graduate) to be ultra vires. 59. In view of the above, the challenge made by the Lecturers of giving Head Masters equivalence and further 25% quota in promotional avenues for the Head Master (Middle School) to the post of Principal and remarks under Column-8 of Entry No.18 of Schedule II under the Rules of 2019 cannot be held to be unconstitutional and therefore, WPS Nos.1569/2022, 3431/2021, 4409/2021, 4627/2019 to above extent are dismissed. 26 61. Other challenge of petitioners, who are holding post of Lecturer, is that after grant of equivalence to Head Master and Lecturer by bringing them in one feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Principal, Head Masters, who were juniors to the Lecturers promoted from the post of Head Master will become senior and therefore, seniority of promoted Lecturers be counted from the date they were appointed to the post of Head Master (Middle School). To appreciate submissions of petitioners it would be appropriate to extract Rule 15 (1) of the Rules 2019, which reads thus:- “(1). Conditions regarding eligibility for promotion.- (1) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (2), the committee shall consider the cases of all persons, who on the first day of January of that year have completed such number of years of service, (whether officiating or substantive), on the posts from which promotion is to be made, as specified in column (3) of Schedule -IV and are within the zone of consideration in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2). Explanation.- Method of computation for eligibility of promotion- The calculation of the period of qualifying service on the 1st January of the relevant year in which the Departmental Promotion Committee / Scrutiny Committee is convened, shall be counted from the calendar year in which public servant has joined the feeder cadre / part of service/ pay scale of the post and not from the date of joining of the cadre/part of service/ pay scale of the post.…” 62. In the explanation of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019, the date from which length of service is to be counted for promotion is explained i.e. from the calendar year in which public servant has joined feeder cadre/part of service/pay-scale of post and not from the date of joining. It is the case of petitioners that earlier for the Head Master (Middle School), promotional post was 27 Lecturer. In the Rules of 2019, the Head Masters (Middle School) and Lecturers have been brought under Entry-9 along with Lecturer, showing it to be feeder post for promotion to the post of Principal under Schedule IV. There were two modes of recruitment to the post of Lecturer, first by way of direct appointment and second, by way of promotion from the Head Masters (Middle School) (post-graduate). Considering seniority from the date of appointment for promotion under earlier Rules cannot be said to be discriminatory, particularly when for the post of Head Master (Middle School) promotional post was Lecturer. Meaning thereby, post of Head Master (Middle School) was lower in rank than Lecturer and both were placed in different classes. When both posts have been given equivalence for considering promotion, considering length of service in feeder cadre from the date of joining for promoted Lecturers will be unreasonable because Head Masters (Middle School) (Post-Graduate) after specified length of service in cadre of Head Master become eligible for promotion and thereafter got promoted to the post of Lecturer and in the cadre of Head Master they were senior too. In the Rules of 2019, after bringing them into one platform for their promotion to higher post, non-counting of length of service as Head Master of promoted Lecturers in the opinion of this Court amounts to discrimination and unreasonableness. Identical issue was considered by Division Bench of this High Court in case of Tilakram Mandavi (supra) and it was observed as under:- “40. The classification- in counting the experience of Head Master Middle School who continued to be Head Master Middle School but not counting the same in case of those promoted as Lecturer – has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved; rather it defeats the same. There is no difference between those two classes so far as wanting experience of administering a Middle School is concerned. 41. This can be looked into from another angle as well. The courts have held (see below)3 treating 28 unequal as equal to be violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The explanation treats the following two different classes mentioned in the next paragraph into one. This is discriminatory. 42. There are two classes namely the Lecturers, who are directly appointed and the Lecturers, who have been promoted from the post of Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate). In both the cases, it takes the seniority from the date of their becoming Lecturer. This was not discriminatory, when the post of Head Master Middle School was treated to be a lower post than the post of Lecturer but once the State Government treats the post of Head Master Middle School (Post-Graduate) as equivalent to the post of Lecturer, then in not taking into account the service rendered by those Lecturers as Head Master Middle School (Post Graduate) is not proper. These two fall in different classes and ought to be differently treated. 43. This is one more aspect to the unreasonableness. One can also look it with another angle. In case of Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate), the experience as Head Master, Middle School is taken into account, but whereas, in case of Lecturer, who was promoted from the post of Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate), his similar experience is not being taken into account. The result is that these Lecturers who were much senior than the Head Masters, are becoming junior. This is unreasonable and arbitrary. 44. Under the 2011- Rules, the Head Master, Middle School has been made equivalent to the post of Lecturer. We have also upheld this equivalence while deciding the first point. In case, the qualifying service for the Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate) is from the date of his appointment on that post and the qualifying service 29 for the post of Lecturer is from the date on that post, it does not stand to reason as to why the Lecturer, who was promoted from the post of Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate) is not being given seniority from the date of attaining pay scale of Head Master, Middle School. 45. In our opinion, the explanation to Rule 15 (1) of the 2011- Rules is discriminatory and declared illegal. The State Government may frame fresh explanation/rule and till it is framed, the qualifying service of the Lecturers, who have been promoted from the post of Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate) will be taken from the date of their appointment as Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate). In other words, their experience as Head Master, Middle School (Post Graduate) will be taken into account.” We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and accordingly, we hold that Explanation to Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2019 is discriminatory in nature and accordingly, it is hereby declared ultra vires to the Constitution. 75. Conclusion of above discussions is as under:- ● Writ Petition (S) Nos. 502/2022, 557/2022, 892/2022, 1702/2022, 2436/2022, 2742/2022, 598/2022, 599/2022 are dismissed. ● Writ Petition (S) Nos.3286/2021, 3432/2021, 3437/2021, 4603/2021 & 3441/2021 are allowed in part and it is declared that explanation to Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2019 is discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution and therefore, till fresh Explanation under Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2019 is framed, qualifying service of promoted Lecturers from the post of Head Master (Middle School) (Post-Graduate) shall be taken from their appointment as Head Master (Middle School) (Post-Graduate). 30 ● Writ Petition (S) Nos.1569/2022, 2240/2022, 3431/2021, 3518/2022, 4409/2021, 4627/2019 & 5911/2022 are dismissed. ● Writ Petition (S) No.2280/2021 is dismissed. ● Writ Petition (S) No.1275/2022 is dismissed. ● Writ Appeal Nos.196/2022, 212/2022 & 324/2022 are dismissed.” Para 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 20, 35, 40 of WPS No. 5217 of 2019 (order dated 01-07-2025). - “1. In all the present writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the constitutional validity of Serial No. 18 of Schedule II and Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 2019”). In certain writ petitions, the petitioners have further sought a modification of Rule 15 of Schedule II, with a prayer to extend service benefits to Lecturers who have previously discharged duties in the capacity of Head Master. While the principal challenge in these petitions pertains to the vires of the aforementioned entries, namely, Serial No. 18 of Schedule II and Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV, of the 2019 Rules, the petitioners have also, in addition thereto, prayed for the issuance of writs in the nature of mandamus seeking diverse ancillary reliefs. 3. The first group comprises W.P.S. No. 5217 of 2019, W.P.S. No. 9546 of 2019, W.P.S. No. 438 of 2020, W.P.S. No. 1541 of 2020, and W.P.S. No. 1718 of 2021. The primary relief sought in W.P.S. No. 5217 of 2019 was taken as the representative issue for consideration within this group, which is as follows: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the condition at serial No.18 of Schedule-II of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 is being ultra-vires to the Article 14 and 16 of the 31 Constitution of India, 1950; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to prescribe the 75% for promotion on the post of Principal from Head-Master/ Lecturer equally, as was earlier prescribed as per serial No.3 of Schedule-II of Rules, 2011; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to prepare the consolidated Seniority-List/Gradation-List of Head- Master (Post-Graduate) and Lecturer of T- cadre, by this further consider for promotion on the post of Principal; 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to incorporate the condition as Trained equally for Lecturers also as prescribed for Head-Master (Trained) at serial No.18 (3) of the Schedule-II of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019; 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 10.6 Quash and set aside the order no. F 2 - 65/2024/20-3 dated 30.04.2025 and the order no. F1 - 108/2024/20-3 dated 30.04.2025 issued by the Under-secretary department of School Education Government of Chhattisgarh. 5. Third group contains W.P.S. No. 1779 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 2220 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 2368 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 4077 of 2025 and W.P.S. No. 4447 of 2025. The primary relief sought in W.P.S. No. 1779 of 2025 was taken as the representative issue for consideration within this group, which is as follows : 32 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly declare Entry 18 of Schedule II and Entry 9 of Schedule IV as ultra vires as being violative of Article 14 and 16. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned gradation list published on 29.10.2024 by Respondent No 02. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to not to consider the Head Master (Middle School) as eligible for the purposes of promotion to the post of Principal. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondent authorities to include the name of Lecturers, who have previously worked in the post of Head Master (Middle School) to the gradation list of Head Masters and gradation list of Lecturers by giving them seniority from the date of their joining the post of Head Master (Middle School). 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the cost of petition. 10.6 Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” *Facts of the case in the Third Group containing W.P.S. Nos. 1779/2025, 2220/2025, 2368/2025, 4077/2025 and 4447 of 2025 : 10. Petitioners are working as Lecturers or Head Masters (Middle School) in various Government Schools under the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. They were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers under applicable recruitment rules and subsequently promoted to the post of Lecturer. They possess clean service records and have been promoted based on merit, seniority, and as per the hierarchical norms. On 05.03.2019, the State notified the Chhattisgarh 33 School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Rules, 2019 under Article 309 of the Constitution. The rules govern recruitment to the post of Principal, which is the next stage in the promotional hierarchy. Schedule II of the Rules states: * 10% of Principal posts to be filled through direct recruitment, * 90% through promotion which is further bifurcated as follows : 1. 65% from Lecturers 2. 25% from Head Masters (Middle School) The petitioners challenge the classification of Head Masters (Middle School) and Lecturers as equally eligible feeder cadres for promotion to Principal, particularly under Rule 6, Rule 14, Rule 15, and Schedule IV, Serial No. 9 of the 2019 Rules. Equation of distinct posts violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as Lecturers possess higher academic qualifications (e.g., B.Ed.), and their role involves subject specialization and higher teaching responsibilities. A gradation list dated 27.05.2024 included both Lecturers and Head Masters (Middle School) as eligible for promotion based on their past service. However, a revised list dated 29.10.2024 excluded Lecturers (including many petitioners), stating that they now form a separate cadre. This bifurcation into two separate feeder lists (Lecturers and Head Masters) has allegedly undermined accrued seniority, allowed junior Head Masters to overtake senior Lecturers, and created a scenario where career progression is reversed or retarded for those who accepted promotion to Lecturer. Specific grievance raised about inclusion of non-B.Ed. candidates in promotion lists, violating NCTE Regulations, 2014, and NEP 2020, which mandate B.Ed. as a minimum qualification. The action of Deputy Director DPI's in calling ACRs of non-qualified candidates and excluding qualified ones is also challenged. The State has begun implementing promotions under the challenged framework, 34 orders and proposals for promotions were issued between September 2024 and April 2025. There is a risk of irreversible prejudice to petitioners’ career prospects, especially for those nearing retirement. 13. Mr. Y. C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Mr. Ankit Singh, Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Mr. Sameer Rigri, Mr. Anjay Mishra, Mr. Zakir Anam Shah, Mr. Vishal Chandrawanshi, Ms. Pooja Loniya, Ms. Meera Tiwari and Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocates for the respective petitioners appearing in third group submits that the petitioners, Lecturers duly appointed and promoted through the recognized service hierarchy, their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been gravely violated by the impugned provisions and actions under the Rules, 2019. The central grievance arises from the arbitrary and irrational classification of distinct posts, Lecturer (High/Higher Secondary School) and Head Master (Middle School), as equal feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Principal. This classification, devoid of any intelligible differentia and lacking a rational nexus to the objective of merit-based promotion, unjustly equates posts that differ substantially in qualification, recruitment process, responsibilities, and career trajectory. The rules have distorted the seniority- cum-merit principle by preparing separate feeder cadre lists, manipulating seniority reckoning by counting service from the date of Head Mastership instead of from the date of promotion to Lecturer, and permitting juniors to supersede seniors in promotional consideration. Such actions not only breach the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness but also contravene settled principles of service jurisprudence, legitimate expectation, and non- retrogression. The implementation of these rules has resulted in the wrongful exclusion of eligible and senior Lecturers from the gradation list, particularly the one prepared after 27.05.2024, which further defies the binding precedent of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 502/2022, wherein the explanation to Rule 15(1) was declared ultra 35 vires. In WPS No. 2220/2025, it is additionally pointed out that the action of State in permitting Non-B.Ed. candidates to be promoted to the post of Principal, despite B.Ed. being a mandatory qualification for Lecturers and for direct recruitment to the same post, is both arbitrary and in violation of NCTE regulations, thus infringing Articles 14 and 16 as well as statutory norms. The petitioners emphasize that this Hon’ble Court has already struck down similar provisions in the matter of Shrawan Kumar v. Union of India (WPS/2358/2024), and yet the respondents have continued to rely on identical rules and explanations, undermining judicial authority and perpetuating discrimination. The rushed and selective implementation of the flawed gradation lists and promotions, especially in the final phase of the careers of petitioners’, causes irreparable prejudice and irreversible consequences, forcing seniors to serve under their juniors in blatant disregard of merit, experience, and hierarchy. The impugned rules and resultant promotion orders are constitutionally infirm as they create a “class within a class” and unjustifiably favor a particular category without any objective or legal basis. The actions of the respondents, including the issuance of fresh gradation lists contrary to prior judicial directions and the misapplication of eligibility norms, represent a systemic erosion of service rights and natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus pray that this Hon’ble Court invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to declare Entry 18 of Schedule II and Column 3 of Serial No. 14 of Schedule-IV of the 2019 Rules unconstitutional and ultra vires, quash the impugned gradation lists and promotion orders, restore the earlier legally compliant gradation list dated 27.05.2024, and direct the respondents to undertake the promotion process in strict compliance with constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and established service norms. 20. At this stage, it is appropriate to note that these rules have been repeatedly challenged before this Court, each time disputing various aspects of the matter. In some 36 petitions, the grievances raised were presented in a disguised manner. All such writ petitions have been dismissed, with only one petition eliciting certain observations. 35. It is a well-established position of law that no government servant has a vested or enforceable right to promotion, but only the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. A reduction in promotional chances, by itself, does not amount to an infringement of any constitutional or legal right, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or actuated by mala fides, which is not the case here. Further, the Court notes that the requirement of a “trained” qualification, such as B.Ed., for promotion to the post of Headmaster, is grounded in the functional and administrative responsibilities associated with the position. The fact that such a qualification is not mandated for Lecturers is based on the differing pedagogical and subject expertise expected of them. This distinction in eligibility criteria is prospective in nature, and cannot be said to be discriminatory or violative of Article 14, particularly when it does not operate to the detriment of those who were already in service and otherwise eligible for promotion. 40. Earlier, in W.P.S. No. 3286 of 2021, along with the connected matters W.P.S. No. 3432 of 2021, W.P.S. No. 3437 of 2021, W.P.S. No. 4603 of 2021, and W.P.S. No. 3441 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court has declared that the Explanation to Rule 15(1) of the Rules, 2019 is discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. Consequently, until a fresh Explanation under Rule 15(1) of the 2019 Rules is duly framed, the qualifying service of Lecturers promoted from the post of Headmaster (Middle School) (Post-Graduate) shall be reckoned from the date of their appointment as Headmaster (Middle School) (Post-Graduate). Since the aforementioned Explanation has already been declared unconstitutional, the State Government is under a legal obligation to amend the Explanation to Rule 15(1) of the 2019 Rules in conformity with the constitutional mandate.” 37 23. The submission made by the State counsel that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is already settled by the various writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners and the State Government has issued the gradation list after considering the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned cases, appears to be correct. In para 58 of the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, the scope of claiming promotion has also been considered by the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court, which reads as under:- “58. Determination of conditions of service, alteration thereof by amending rules, constitution, classification or abolition of posts, cadres or categories of service, amalgamation, bifurcation of departments, reconstitution, restructuring of pattern etc., all pertain to executive policy and within exclusive discretion of the State, subject to the limitations and restrictions envisaged in the Constitution. Government servants have only right to safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued but they cannot challenge the authority of the State to make such amendments or alterations in rules. In the case of P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:- “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged 38 in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/ substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate.......” 24. It is also there in the gradation list issued on 17-10-2024 as on 01-04-2024, a note has been appended at the bottom of the gradation list that:- “Vhi%& ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; N-x- fcykliqj }kjk MCY;w-ih-,l- 502@2022 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 09-03-2023 ds ifjikyu esa ,sls O;k[;krk ftudh inksUufr iz-ik-izk-’kkyk ¼LukrdksRrj½ in ls gqbZ gS ds vgZdkjh lsok dh x.kuk iz-ik-ek-’kkyk ¼LukrdksRrj½ in ij inksUufr fnukad ls dh xbZ gSA” 25. The gradation list dated 17-10-2024 was corrected as per the direction given in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, order dated 09-03-2023, and the corrected gradation list was published on 29-10-2024, stating therein that in view of para 75 of the order dated 09-03-2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 502/2022, the gradation list is being published. The relevant part of the memo dated 29-10-2024 is reproduced herein below:- “जारी वरिरीष्ठता सूची में सूमेंस्ता सूभागीय सूयका सूचीलका, शिक्षा सूभागी, छत्तीसूगीढ़ एव जिजाल शिक्षा अजि कारिरीय! द्वारी पुष्टीकारीका दस्ताव&जा! सूशि'ता उपुलब् कारीय& गीय& प्रकारीणों! पुरी शिवचीरी शिकाय जाकारी वरिरीष्ठता सूची में सू री शिकाय गीय ',। उपुरी.क्तानुसूरी सू री उपुरीता शिदनुका 01.04.2023 का1 स्थिस्3शिता में प्र नु पुठका, पुव5 39 मेंध्यशिमेंका ल (ई-सूवगी5) का1 अशितामें वरिरीष्ठता सूची का प्रकानु शिकाय जा री' ',। ……...मेंनुनुय उच्ची न्ययलय छ.गी. शि:लसूपुरी में दयरी यशिचीका कामेंका 502/2022 में पुरिरीता आद& शिदनुका 09.03.2023 का& का शि<का कामेंका-75 इसू प्रकारी ',- ……...Writ Petition (5) Nos.3286/2021, 3432/2021, 3437/2021, 4603/2021 & 3441/2021 are allowed in part and it is declared that explanation to Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2019 is discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution and therefore, till fresh Explanation under Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2019 is framed, qualifying service of promoted Lecturers from the post of Head Master (Middle School) (Post-Graduate) shall be taken from their appointment as Head Master (Middle School) (Post Graduate). ……...उपुरी.क्तानुसूरी पुरिरीता आद& का& पुरिरीपुलनु में व्यख्यता (ई/टी सूवगी5) का1 वरिरीष्ठता सूची में ऐसू& व्यख्यता जिजानुका1 पुद.न्नशिता प्र.पु.में. ल (स्नुताका.त्तीरी) पुद सू& 'Cई ', का& अ'5कारी सू&व का1 गीणोंनु-प्र.पु. में.ल (स्नुताका.त्तीरी) पुद पुरी पुद.न्नशिता शिदनुका सू& का1 गीई ',। पुव5 में जारी प्र नु पुठका पुव5 मेंध्यशिमेंका ल का1 वरिरीष्ठता सूची में व्यख्यताओं का नुमें जा.ड़ा गीय 3, ऐसू& व्यख्यताओं का. व्यख्यता (ईवटी सूवगी5) का1 वरिरीष्ठता सूची में अ'5कारी सू&व का1 गीणोंनु शिकाय& जानु& का& सू: में टीपु अशिकाता शिकाय& जानु& का& फलस्वरूपु प्र.पु.में.ल (स्नुताका.त्तीरी / प्रशिशिक्षाता) का1 वरिरीष्ठता सूची सू& इनुका नुमें शिवल.शिपुता शिकाय जा री' ',। वरिरीष्ठता सूची शिवभागीय व&वसूईटी eduportal.cg.nic.in में अपुल.< का1 गीई ',। सूभा जिजाल शिक्षा अजि कारी उक्ता वरिरीष्ठता सूची का. अपुनु& काय5लय का& सूचीनु पुटील पुरी सू:जि ता! का& अवल.कानु '&ता अशिनुणोंय5 रूपु सू& चीस्पु कारीनु सूशिनुस्थिHचीता कारी।"” 26. In the case of R. Prabha Devi & ors. Vs. Government of India, through- Secretary Ministry of Personnel & Training, Administrative Reforms & ors.” (1988) 2 SCC 233, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has 40 specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same, have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfills the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal: "When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience." 27. In the case of Ram Saran V. State of Punjab, (1991) 2 SCC 253, the 41 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:- "21. If the government employee was on deputation or holding a post in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased to hold the post in another cadre. There is no revival of the lien during the period the employee continues to hold a post in another cadre. Therefore, during the period the suspension is operative, the employee cannot claim that he had been continuing in the post in the parent cadre and gaining experience. When the rule is clear and specific that for the purpose of promotion from the cadre of Superintendents, Assistant, Accountants, Senior Scale Stenographers to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers, the eligibility qualification is "experience of working 'as such' for five years", the employee is not entitled to claim the experience in the ex- cadre as experience of working in the ministerial cadre." 28. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rules and the orders passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 502 of 2022 and WPS No. 5217 of 2019 reveals that, the vires, which was challenged in those writ petitions primarily, relates to entry No. 18 of schedule-II and column (3) of entry No. 9 of schedule-IV of the Rules of 2019, enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the said Rules of 2019. It was contended that the maximum number of promotional posts for Principal is allotted to Lecturers (E-cadre) and the Headmasters and Lecturers of other cadres are deprived of equivalent promotional prospects. It is relevant to note that, previously multiple cadres existed separately, including Teachers from Local Bodies, Tribal Department and the Education Department. The State had decided to consolidate all Teachers into a single cadre under the School, Education Department. Consequently, the Rules of 2019 has been framed. This Rules is based on total 42 number of vacant posts to ensure proper representation of all cadres. The claim of the petitioner that the seniority of Headmasters should be counted on the post of Lecturers and then his placement may be done in the gradation list, which in the opinion of this Court is not the correct procedure to count his seniority on the promoted post. From the aforementioned Rules and the quotas fixed for the posts of Principal, it is clear that no quota allocated to any cadre, has been curtailed. Lecturers and Headmasters are placed in equal pay scales and classes and both served as feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Principal. There is no evidence to suggest that the State has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in the classification or fixation of quotas. 29. The petitioner has challenged the promotion order dated 30.04.2025 to the post of Principal in the E-cadre and T-cadre. He is claiming his entitlement on the basis of counting his service as Headmaster, Middle School prior to his promotion as Lecturer and he would become eligible for inclusion of his name in the list of promotion to the post of Principal from the post of Lecturer. He also claimed that his juniors have been included in the list of promotion, but the petitioner has been left out due to non-consideration and incorrect counting of his service rendered as Headmaster, Middle School. It appears that the actual grievance of the petitioner has arisen with the gradation list published on 29.10.2024, which does not include the name of the petitioner, but the petitioner has not challenged the said gradation list. Though, he filed an application for amendment in the prayer clause on 04.08.2025, which is being dealt in the later part of this order. 43 30. The petitioner is a Lecturer and as per Rules, 2019, a different quota has been fixed under schedule-II of Rules, 2019 for consideration of promotion to the post of Principal and 65% posts have been allotted. For Headmaster, Middle School, 25% posts have been allotted and thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner under no circumstances can be allowed to jump from his own category of Lecturer to the category of Headmaster, Middle School for eligibility of for the post of Principal. The petitioner wants his seniority to be counted from the post of Headmaster, Middle School, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 31. Further, in WPS No. 4231 of 2024, the gradation list was challenged raising the grievance that the Headmaster, Middle School has been placed lower in the seniority from the Lecturers, and therefore, the prospect of promotion from the post of Headmaster, Middle School to the post of Principal is jeopardised. An interim order has been passe on 29.07.2024, and thereafter, the gradation list was corrected and another gradation list was issued on 29.10.2024. The petitioner has not challenged the said gradation list issued on 29.10.2024, despite knowing the fact that, his name is not included in the said gradation list. Further, in the order dated 09.03.2023, passed in WPS No. 502 of 2022 and other bunch of petitions, it has been said that the period of working on the post of Headmaster would be counted only for the purpose of counting the qualifying period for eligible for promotion and according to the Rules of 2019, the qualifying period is 05 years. Here the petitioner is claiming for counting of his service rendered as 44 Headmaster, Middle School for fixing of his seniority to the post of Lecturer. The tenure would be counted only for calculation of qualifying service, therefore, the petitioner has no case in the present writ petition. 32. The qualifying service means the minimum service necessary for consideration for promotion. The petitioner having promoted to the post of Lecturer has ceased to hold the earlier post of Headmaster, Middle School and has entered in the cadre of Lecturer, which is an independent feeding cadre for promotion to the post of Principal. The observation made in WPS No. 502 of 2022, order dated 09.03.2023 had been made in view of the cases, wherein the candidates were promoted to the post of Lecturer recently and had not been fulfilling the requirement of qualifying service on the post of Lecturer for further promotion to the post of Principal. In the case of the present petitioner, he has sufficient length of his service on the post of Lecturer. The service rendered on the post of Headmaster, Middle School can be taken into consideration, when the experience of 05 years would not be completed on the post of Lecturer, and then the requisite period for fulfilling the experience of 05 years would be taken from the post of Headmaster, Middle School. 33. From the foregoing discussions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in various orders in earlier occasion, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner could not demonstrate any arbitrariness on the part of the State on issuance of the gradation list dated 29.10.2024 and promotion order dated 45 30.04.2025. The gradation list dated 29.10.2024 and the promotion order dated 30.04.2025 have been issued under the strict compliance of Rules, 2019 based on rational and intelligible considerations and fall squarely within the competence of the authorities, and does not suffer from any arbitrariness or discrimination. The classification between E- cadre and E(LB)-cadre employees, the fixation of promotion quotas and the eligibility criteria have already been discussed and decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 502 of 2022, order dated 09.03.2023 and in WPS No. 5217 of 2019, order dated 01.07.2025. 34. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 12.05.2025 and at the cost of repetition, the relief(s) claimed in the writ petition is being reproduced:- “10.1 That, The impugned promotion order dated 30/04/2025 issued by respondent no. 1 be quashed and also in the light of the recruitment rule 2019 petitioners promotion be considered taken his seniority as a headmaster middle school. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue fresh advertisement and provide reasonable opportunity to the participate in the recruitment process. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.” 35. On 29.05.2025, the coordinate bench of this Court has granted interim relief to the petitioner staying the effect and operation of the impugned promotion order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P/1). On 14.07.2025, the 46 State/respondent filed document stating therein that the petitioner- Narayan Prasad Tiwari has been retired from the post of Lecturer on 30.06.2025. On 16.07.2025, the petitioner has filed an application for arraying the necessary respondents in the writ petition (I.A. No. 11 of 2025), by which he sought for impleadment of 100 candidates as the respondents in the present writ petition saying that, juniors to the petitioner have been promoted, who are the necessary parties to the petition. On 28.07.2025, the petitioner has filed another application (I.A. No. 21 of 2025) for amendment in the writ petition, in which he submitted that, clause 10.2 of relief(s) column in the writ petition has been pleaded inadvertently and no such relief is required in the present petition and wants to delete the same from the relief(s) clause. He further prayed for challenging the gradation list dated 29.10.2024, in which the seniority of Headmasters/Lecturers has been struck out despite the verdict order in WPS No. 502 of 2023 and WPS No. 1449 of 2013, however from the application, it does not reflect, as to what would be the exact prayer, he wanted to carry out in the writ petition by way of amendment. If the petitioner wanted to carry out any amendment in the writ petition, he should clearly state as to what is to be deleted and what is to be substituted. There is no specific amendment prayed by the petitioner in the relief(s) column of the writ petition. The other amendment, which he sought in the writ petition is minor and typographical correction. 36. The hearing of the case was started on 28.07.2025, which continued up to 05.08.2025. After conclusion of the hearing of the 47 respondents/State on 04.08.2025, the petitioner filed another application for withdrawal of arraying application (I.A. No. 24 of 2025), which was filed on 15.07.2025 (correct date is 16.07.2025). In the said application (I.A. No. 24 of 2025), though the contents of the application is for withdrawal of the arraying application dated 15.07.2025, but from its prayer clause, it reveals that the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a better petition. On the same day, i.e. on 04.08.2025, the petitioner had filed another application (I.A. No. 25 of 2025) for arraying necessary respondents, by which the petitioner wants to implead 404 persons as the respondents in the writ petition stating that, they are juniors to the petitioner and has been promoted vide promotion order dated 30.04.2025. 37. Since the respondents as well as the intervenors, who opposes the petition have raised the issue that, the affected persons, who have been promoted to the post of Principal vide promotion order dated 30.04.2025 are the necessary parties to the petition and without arraying them as the respondents in the petition, the writ petition is not maintainable, as it would go against them, if any order would be passed in favour of the petitioner. Since, no merits has been found in the petition, the issue with respect to the proper and necessary parties are not being decided in the present writ petition, keeping in view that the petitioner could not succeed to make out his case for quashing of the impugned promotion order dated 30.04.2025 and there is no challenge by an specific prayer made in the writ petition regarding challenge of the gradation list dated 29.10.2024. Although, the 48 amendment application has been filed by the petitioner, but in that amendment application also, the petitioner could not propose, as to what amendment he is claiming in the writ petition. Merely saying that, he wants to challenge the gradation list dated 29.10.2024, is not sufficient to claim that he has already challenged the gradation list dated 29.10.2024 in the writ petition. The prayer should be specific in its terms, so that the writ petition can be adjudicated in its proper way. 38. As a fall out, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 39. Consequently, all the interim applications are hereby disposed of, and interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved