1 2025:CGHC:49314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3349 of 2025 1. Sant Ram Sahu S/o Shri Lachchi Prasad Sahu Aged About 58 Years Lecturer, T-Cadre, Govt. Higher Secondary School Gharghoda, Block Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Divisional Director (Education) Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. Balit Ram Bagmare Lecturer, Govt. High School Tarda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4830 of 2025 1. Satish Kumar Rangari S/o Late Puran Lal Rangari Aged About 54 Years Head Master, Govt. Middle School Keregaon, Block Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.11.17 12:52:11 +0530 2 3. Joint Divisional Director (Education) Raipur Division, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. Block Education Officer Block Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6. Smt. Sushila Gadhpale Head Master, Govt. Middle School Lattipara, District Kanker (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3755 of 2025 1. Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Lakeshwar Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Lecturer (Lb), T- Cadre, Sages Govt. Hindi Medium High Secondary School Mungadih, Block Pali, District - Korba, (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Public Instruction Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Divisional Director (Education), Bilaspur Division District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Satyam Balaji Lecturer (Lb), Govt. Higher Secondray School Silfili District - Surajpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3375 of 2025 1. Ku. Victoria Kujur D/o Late Manuel Kujur Aged About 51 Years Lecturer (Lb), T-Cadre, Govt. Higher Secondary School Turkela, Kharsiya, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Divisional Director (Education) Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 5. Ku. Mangarita Toppo Lecturer (Lb), Govt. Higher Secondary School Kirandul, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in bunch of these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. This bunch of petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who are working as Headmaster in the middle school or Lecturer in the School Education Department, challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) by which their names have not been considered for promotion on the post of Principal higher secondary school on the pay scale of Rs. 15600-49100 in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they have already submitted representation before the School Education Department raising their grievances of non-consideration of their promotion. It has also been contended that the posts are available and the respondents/ State has already promoted 3000 Lecturers/ Headmasters in all the cadres of School Education Department but the petitioners have been discriminated, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to conduct review DPC for promoting them on the post of Principal. 4 4. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Dy. Advocate General alongwith Nodal Officer of the department would inform to this Court that they have already considered 109 representations submitted by the Headmasters/Lecturers whose case could not be considered for promotion, sent the proposal to the Public Service Commission to conduct review DPC for promotion on the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School. It has also been informed to this Court that 55 persons who have made representations claiming promotion have not been found fit according to them and 24 representations are still pending. 5. It has also been informed that very shortly Public Service Commission will conduct the review DPC and for that they are persuading the Public Service Commission in this regard. 6. Since no time limit has been informed to this Court to conduct review DPC, in such contingency, the Public Service Commission is directed to conduct the review DPC within 60 from the date of receipt of copy of this order and consider it on its own merit without being influence from any of the observation made by this Court. This Court while issuing such direction is fortified with the legal position that the promotion is not the fundament right of a government servant but right to consideration is right of the government servant. Even the rules framed by the State of Chhattisgarh under Article 309 of the Constitution of India namely Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 which mandates that the government department should conduct DPC every year for promotion in all the cadres. 5 7. It is made clear that this Court has only referred the facts for adjudication of these petitions, this Court has not commented on merit of the individuals case whether they are fit for promotion or not as it is to be assessed by the Public Service Commission only. 8. The State is also directed to communicate the consideration/order passed by them while deciding the representations submitted by the petitioners to the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish