1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3649 of 2015 1 - Dr. Prabhavati Shukla W/o Shri Upendra Shukla, Aged About 55 Years R/o Sunder Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Registrar Through Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 15/10 /202 5 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action/inaction of the respondent authority by not giving seniority since 2007, when the petitioner became eligible for the post of professor. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as SAT by Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University. In the year 1990, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer and worked for the next nine years in the post, performing her work meticulously and receiving kudos. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a reader in the year 1999 and completed her eight years in the said post in the year 2007 with an accolade record. She next HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.10.16 10:34:58 +0530 2 submits that under the CAS Scheme, the petitioner became eligible for the promotion to the post of professor on 24.01.2007, but she was not promoted to the eligible post. The petitioner had made various representations to the concerned authority, but her representation has not been decided till date, and the retirement of the petitioner is due in the month of November, 2025. Therefore, by directing the respondent authority to decide her representation dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure- P/5), the matter may be disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the representation of the petitioner would be decided as early as possible, as per law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. In view of the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that representation of the petitioner has not been decided, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and decide the pending representation dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure-A/5) expeditiously within a period of 30 days from today in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the petitioner's claim; it will be for the respondent to consider and decide her representation on its own merits in accordance with the law. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order passed against her representation if aggrieved by the same. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu