1 2025:CGHC:59045-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 887 of 2025 Narayan Prakash Tiwari (Narayan Prasad Tiwari) S/o Late Bhisham Prasad Tiwari Aged About 62 Years Was Working As Lecturer, In Government Higher Secondary School Khairbanakala, District- Kawardha, R/o- 74/98- Anand Vihar Colony, Kawardha, P.S.- Kotwali Kawardha District- Kawardha (C.G.) ... Appellant 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 CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.06 11:23:37 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.12.2025 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3937/2025 whereby and whereunder the writ petition of the writ petitioner has been dismissed. For the sake convenience the parties are referred as per their status in the writ Court. 3. (a) Case of the writ petitioner 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. 3 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 Bnds place at Sr. No. 45. On 27-05-2024, another gradation list was issued by the department as on 01- 04-2024, in which also the name of the petitioner Bnds 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 4 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 Blled by Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 through a limited examination, and 75% posts are to be Blled by promotion from Lecturers. In these 75% posts, 65% posts will be Blled by limited examination, and 35% posts are to be Blled by promotion from the Headmaster of Middle School. The said promotion avenue was reiterated by the notiBcation dated 22-05-2014 issued by the State Government, by which the Chhattisgarh School Education (Gazetted) (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 Blled from Lecturers/Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Lecturer Panchayat) through a limited departmental examination, and 75% posts shall be Blled by promotion from regular Lecturers by the department. (b) It is also the case of the petitioner that vide notiBcation dated 05-03-2019 (wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as 5 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 Blled by promotion from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post Graduate) of which 70% shall be Blled from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post Graduate) of E-Cadre, and 30% posts shall be Blled from E (LB) Cadre. (c) 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 Bled 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 qualiBcations, and both are Class-II Gazetted posts. In the W.P.S. No.3286/2021 and a batch of writ petitions, the State had Bled its reply that the seniority in the Head Master and earlier promotion to the post of Lecturer are to be taken care 6 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. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing thus:- “ xxx xxx xxx 35. On 29.05.2025, the coordinate bench of this Court has granted interim relief to the petitioner staying the 7 e ect and operation of the impugned promotion order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P/1). On 14.07.2025, the State/respondent *led 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 *led 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 *led 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 8 2023 and WPS No. 1449 of 2013, however from the application, it does not re9ect, 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 speci*c 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 respondents/State on 04.08.2025, the petitioner *led another application for withdrawal of arraying application (I.A. No. 24 of 2025), which was *led 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 *le a 9 better petition. On the same day. i.e. on 04.08.2025, the petitioner had *led 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 a ected 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 10 is no challenge by an speci*c prayer made in the writ petition regarding challenge of the gradation list dated 29.10.2024. Although, the amendment application has been *led 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 su;cient to claim that he has already challenged the gradation list dated 29.10.2024 in the writ petition. The prayer should be speci*c in its terms, so that the writ petition can be adjudicated in its proper way. 38. As a fall out, this Court does not *nd any scope for interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition *led by the petitioner is dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. She would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the appellant had a vested right to have his seniority determined by taking into 11 account his service as Head Master (Middle School) from 25.08.1998, which he sacriBced in 2010 only because the then prevailing rules (2008 & 2014) assured 75% promotional quota for lecturers to the post of Principal. The subsequent retrospective application of the 2019 Rules (which was partially struck down) cannot take away such accrued right. She would submit that the promotion order dated 30.04.2025 promoting persons junior to the appellant (including persons whose seniority in the feeder cadre of Head Master was admittedly below the appellant) is per se illegal, arbitrary and suIers from the vice of junior getting promoted over senior, which is impermissible in service jurisprudence. According to learned counsel the learned Single Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution by not quashing the patently illegal gradation list dated 29.10.2024 and the consequential promotion order dated 30.04.2025, even though a clear case of discrimination, breach of judicial directions, and violation of settled service law principles was made out. Learned counsel would also submit that the impugned judgment proceeds on a complete non-application of mind to the binding Division Bench judgment dated 12 09.05.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 502/2022 and the categorical admissions made by the State in earlier aJdavits, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. She lastly submits that the appellant continues to suIer irreparable loss and injury as every subsequent promotion cycle is denying him his legitimate claim to the post of Principal, for which he has already rendered more than 27 years of qualifying service from 25.08.1998 as Head Master till date. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order. They would submit that 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 Bxed 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 13 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 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. 14 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Bare perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that 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 Bled an application for amendment in the prayer clause on 04.08.2025, which is being dealt in the later part of this order. . The petitioner is a Lecturer and as per Rules, 2019, a diIerent quota has been Bxed under schedule-ll of Rules, 2019 for 15 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. 9. Having considered the entire facts situation of the case and particularly considering the fact that the petitioner failed to establish to make out a case and even no speciBc prayer has been made in the petition regarding challenge of the gradation list dated 29.10.2024, In our considered view, the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter and by referring various rules relating to the subject matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. There is no illegality or inBrmity warranting interference of this Court. 10. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suIers from 16 patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we Bnd that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11.In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib