2025:CGHC:38365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1068 of 2017 1 - Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Raikona, Police Station Sarsiwan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Balodabazar Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief (s):- “1) This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash the order dated 03/01/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balodabazar-Bhatapara. 2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and increment to get similar pay-scale of the post of Teacher (Panchyat) as per orders passed in W.A. No. 475/2015. 3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III vide order dated 30.04.2005 and his services were regularized on 20.09.2007. He would further submit that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in the year 2013, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that at the relevant time, he was not holding THE requisite qualification, i.e., a Graduation degree. He would contend that the petitioner acquired the graduation degree in the month of December, 2013 and thereafter, a DPC was convened in the year 2016, and juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 16.06.2016, but the name of the petitioner was not considered. He would contend that the name of the petitioner has been considered for promotion in the year 2023, and he has been promoted to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 15.05.2023. He would also contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant promotion along with consequential benefits from 16.06.2016, when juniors to the petitioner were promoted. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would oppose. He would submit that in the year 2013, the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification; therefore, his name was not considered. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in the month of December, 2013 after passing the graduation examination, but his name was not considered in the DPC convened in the year 2016. 6. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2017, and sufficient reasons have not been assigned in the said order. The names of the juniors to the petitioner were considered for promotion to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II, and the petitioner was singled out. 7. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit attached to the promotional post with retrospective effect but considering the fact that juniors to the petitioner were promoted in the year 2016 and the name of the petitioner was not considered, the respondents authorities are directed to provide notional benefits to the petitioner from 16.06.2016. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha