1 2025:CGHC:20417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2145 of 2017 • Kumar Das Vaishnav S/o Ghunu Das Vaishnav, Aged About 50 Years Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Govt. Primary School, Akalghariya (Bhira), Block And Post P. S. Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Panchayat, Kabirdham, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3. Janpad Panchayat, Bodla, Through It's Chief Executive Officer, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4. Block Education Officer, Block Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPS No. 2377 of 2017 • Ghanshyam Verma S/o Shri Bhikhmanga Ram Verma, Aged About 43 Years Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Govt. Primary School, Neurgaon Kala, P. S. And Block Bodla, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Panchayat, Kabirdham, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3. Janpad Panchayat, Bodla, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4. Block Education Officer, Block Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham dated 21.10.2016 and 15.12.2016, whereby their representations were rejected and they were denied promotion to the post of Teacher Panchayat. 2. Mr. A.S. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners are in public employment with avenues of promotions provided under the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. He would submit that the petitioners completed 07 years of service, the posts of teachers were lying vacant and they were at a high position in the seniority list, therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered their claim for promotion. He would contend that initially, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2005 to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. He would contend that the gradation list was published by the Block Education Officer, Bodla. The name of the petitioner Kumar Das Vaishnav was at serial No. 17 whereas the name of Ghanshyam Verma was at serial No. 46. He would also submit that the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher after completion of 07 years of service. He would contend that the petitioners filed WPS No. 2406/2016 and WPS No. 2710/2016 claiming therein direction to the respondent authorities to promote 3 them creating supernumerary posts. He would further contend that those petitions were disposed of vide orders dated 28.06.2016 and 07.07.2016. Mr. Rajput would also contend that the petitioners made representations before respondent No. 2 and those were rejected by respondent No. 2 vide orders dated 21.10.2016 and 15.12.2016 on the grounds that posts of teacher are not lying vacant in the District Kabirdham. He would state that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Topilal Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 4 would oppose. He would submit that the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) was not considered in the absence of a vacancy. He would further submit that in the year 2018, the services of the petitioners were absorbed with the School Education Department and any claim with regard to promotion or seniority can be considered by the School Education Department. He would contend that the petitioners have not impleaded the School Education Department as a party respondent. He would further contend that the petitioners moved representations before respondent No. 2 to create supernumerary posts of teachers which cannot be done to accommodate the petitioners. He would also submit that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 2005. The petitioners completed 07 years of services in the year 2012. Their names were not considered for 4 promotion to the post of Teacher, therefore, they filed WPS No. 2406/2016 and WPS No. 2710/2016 claiming therein direction to the respondent authorities to consider their names for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat). Writ Petitions were disposed of and the petitioners were granted liberty to make representations before respondent No. 2 and the authority concerned was directed to decide the same. The petitioners made representations and those were rejected vide orders dated 21.10.2016 and 15.12.2016. It appears that in the representations, the petitioners requested respondent No.2 to create supernumerary posts of Teacher (Panchayat). The prayer with regard to the creation of supernumerary posts cannot be granted by this Court in a routine manner. Further, the petitioners have not demonstrated that the service rules permit the creation of supernumerary posts. 6. Indisputably, the services of the petitioners have already been absorbed with the School Education Department pursuant to a policy decision taken by the State. The petitioners have sought relief against the Panchayat Department and they have not arrayed the School Education Department as a party respondent, therefore also no relief can be granted as sought by the petitioners. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, no case is made out for interference. 8. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti