1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1682 of 2017 1 - Uma Devi Tiwari W/o Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Upper Division Teacher, Posted At Middle School, Buniyadi, Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Pramod Singh Thakur, Govt. Higher Secondary School Boys Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajkumar Dhruw, Govt. Higher Secondary School Boys Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.08.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure P/4) with regard to respondent no. 4 & 5 and grant the petitioner promotion. 10.2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 19.9.1998 and was promoted to Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in 2006. He would further submit that vide impugned order dated 27.3.2017, respondents No.4 & 5 were promoted to the next higher post, and the name of the petitioner was not considered. He would contend that, as per the reply filed by the respondents, respondent No. 5 was extended the benefit of reservation. He would further contend that a direction may be issued to respondent No.3 to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion from 27.3.2017, when respondents No.4 & 5 were promoted. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that in the merit list, the rank of respondents No. 4 & 5 was above the petitioner. They would contend that the benefit of promotion to respondent No. 5 was not extended, providing the benefit of reservation, and the contention of the petitioner is not supported by any relevant document. They would also submit that the name of the petitioner would be considered for promotion at the appropriate stage. 4. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 3 5. Considering the fact that earlier the petitioner was promoted in 2006 and two of his colleagues were promoted by respondent No.3 vide order dated 27.3.2017, therefore, this petition at this juncture is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise his grievances before respondent No. 2 by making a representation and in turn, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 150 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi