1 2025:CGHC:20604-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 294 of 2025 Manju Bist W/o K.S. Bist Aged About 55 Years R/o Q.No. B150, Adarsh Nagar, Post And P.S. Kusmunda, Colliery, Tah. And Dist. Korba C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Vidyut Grih Shiksha Samiti, Through Secretary Korba East, P.S. and P.O. Tahsil and District Korba C.G. 495677 2 - Principal Vidyut Grih Higher Sec. School No. 1, Korba (East), P.S. and P.O. and Tahsil And District Korba C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer (Production) Ktps, C.G. State Electricity. Production Co. Ltd. Korba (East) District- Korba C.G. 4 - C.G. State Electricity Production Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur C.G., 5 - Sushma Lokare W/o O.P. Lokare Aged About 65 Years Lower Division Teacher, Vidyut Grih H.S. School No. 1 Korba (East) P.S. and Dist. Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma holding brief of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma holding brief of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 5142 of 2012 (Manju Bist Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the petitioner / appellant herein has projected his case before the learned writ Court that she was appointed vide order dated 30.08.1990 passed by respondent No.1 and joined her services on 10.09.1990, however, Respondent No. 5 - Sushma Lokare joined her services on 06.03.1992. It was further case of the petitioner that in the gradation list upto the year – 2011, the petitioner was shown to be placed above the respondent No.5 which is reflected from the order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, the seniority list was amended and amended seniority list was issued in which respondent No. 5 was placed at S.No.9 whereas as petitioner was shown at S.No.10. Being aggrieved by the same, WPS No. 5142 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant / writ petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unauthorized, unwarranted, illegal unjust, and discriminatory & malafide therefore, hit by the postulates of Articles 14 of the Constitution of 3 India. After following selection process, the appellant was appointed in the post of Lower Division Teacher vide order dated 30.08.1990 and she immediately joined her service on 10.09.1990 and since then discharging her duties with utmost sincerity and honesty upto the satisfaction of her superior officer. Increment was granted to the appellant vide order dated 24.12.2004 on completing 12 years of service, w.ef. 10.09.2002 and the benefit of kramonnati after completion of 12 years of services was given to the respondent No.5 on 06.03.2004, which is never disputed nor challenged by the respondent No.5 and though as per gradation list dated 19.01.2011 with regard to the cadre of Lower Division Teacher, show that the name of the appellant find its place over and above respondent No.5, but, within few months by order dated 05.05.2011, the gradation list dated 19.01.2011 was directed to be kept in abeyance and vide order dated 20.04.2012 again gradation list was published placing the respondent No.5 at serial No.10 and petitioner at serial No.9 mentioning the joining date of respondent No.5 as 06.03.1992. He further submitted that shockingly and surprisingly vide order dated 17.10.2012, the amended gradation list as stood on 01.07.2010 regarding the Lower Division Teacher was published, placing the respondent No. 5 above the petitioner at Serial No. 9 and mentioning joining date of respondent No. 5 as 07.09.1990 and petitioner is placed at Serial No. 10, despite a writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending before this Hon'ble Court and despite the writ petition no. 1705/1994 filed by 4 respondent no. 5 was also pending and the issue was subjudice before this Hon'ble Court, the respondents have issued impugned gradation list vide impugned order dated 17.10.2012, thereby granting the seniority to the respondent no. 5 treating her first joining as 07.09.1990, which is without any basis. He also submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was made without following due process of law, as in order dated 30.08.1990 it is clearly mentioned that if the appointed person will not join the post by 15.09.1990, then the same will be treated as cancelled. It is noteworthy to mention here that as per her own admission of respondent No. 5, she alleged to submit her joining on 07.09.1990, but she was not allowed to either join or to teach/attend the classes till 06.03.1992 and she joined service for the first time on 07.03.1992 but she did not approach any legal forum nor made any immediate efforts/complaints against restraining her from teaching despite joining till filing of writ petition in 1992. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respective respondents oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ 5 appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that both the appellant and respondent No. 5 – Sushma Lokhare were appointed on 30.08.1990 and the respondent No.5 – Sushma Lokhare joined her service on 07.09.1990 whereas the apellant joined her service on 10.09.1990. It further transpires that though in some of the gradation list, the respondent No.5 - Sushma Lokare was placed below the appellant herein, but when the mistake came into light from the representation made by the respondent - Sushma Lokare, gradation list was properly amended by the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 and respondent - Sushma Lokare, was placed above the appellant – Manju Bist. Thus, respondent No.5 was senior on account of her date of joining. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra