1 2025:CGHC:57125-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 650 of 2025 Order reserved on: 19.11.2025 Order Delivered on : 25.11.2025 Ram Niwas Sahu S/o Late Ganpat Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Teacher (Panchayat/local Body) At Government Middle School, Shivpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Revenue And Civil District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary School Education Department (E) And (T) Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Revenue And Civil District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Zila Panchayat Surajpur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director Surguja Division Ambikapur Dist- Surguja (C.G.) 6. District Education Officer Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 7. Janpad Panchayat Ramanujnagar Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Dist- Surajpur (C.G.) 8. Block Education Officer Ramanujnagar Dist- Surajpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.25 11:45:54 +0530 2 And WA No. 699 of 2025 Ram Niwas Sahu S/o Late Ganpat Sahu, Aged About 46 Years Working As Posted As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Twd Middle School, Shivpur, Beo Ramanujnagar, Surajpur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Sarguja Division, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Appellant : Mr. Ram Niwas Sahu, appears in person For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge CAV Order Per Bibhu Datta Guru , J. 1. Since common facts and grounds are involved in both the appeals, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The appellant /petitioner in person has filed these writ appeals assailing the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 3369 of 2021 and WPS No. 2408 of 2024, by which, 3 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the Writ Court. 3. Writ appeal No. 650 of 2025 has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and be pleased set-aside the order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure A-1)” 4. Writ appeal No. 699 of 2025 has been filed with the following prayer:- “1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned Order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 3369 of 2021 in the interest of justice, because it is perverse, bad in law, and against the actual facts. 2. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a direction to the party respondents to revise pay of the petitioner as per interim order dated 28.07.2023. Alternately. 3. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the party respondents to revise pay as per the payable chart of the Writ petition 3369 of 2021. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in 4 the interest of justice may also be granted in favour of the Appellant” 5. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II (Mathematics) on 29.05.2009 under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2007 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2007’), and joined duties on 08.06.2009; his services were regularized on 08.06.2011. Upon repeal of the Rules 2007 and enforcement of the Chhattisgarh Shikshak Panchayat (Cadre Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2012’), the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, II and I were redesignated as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Teacher (Panchayat) and Lecturer (Panchayat) with revised educational qualifications prescribed in Schedule-II. The petitioner claims that after completing 7 years of service on 08.06.2016, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) and alternatively to Lecturer (Hindi), but his case was never considered. He further asserts entitlement under the State Government’s one-time relaxation order dated 31.12.2021 issued for promotion from Teacher/Teacher (LB)/Primary Headmaster to Lecturer. Despite his representation and a consequential direction of this Court in WPS No. 8237/2023 (decided on 17.10.2023) to consider his case within 45 days, the authority rejected the claim vide order dated 09.02.2024, stating that in the seniority list as on 01.04.2022 his position stood at Serial No. 3074, only 20% vacancies in Mathematics were available, no promotion process was undertaken in 2021, and that the policy dated 26.10.2023, 5 read with the absorption order dated 30.06.2018, disentitled him from the claimed benefit. 6. In parallel, the petitioner also seeks grant of time-bound pay scale, contending that having completed 10 years of service, he is entitled under the circular dated 10.03.2017 which reduced the qualifying period for Assistant Teachers from 12/24 years to 10/20 years. His claim was examined in the backdrop of the Finance and Planning Department clarification dated 10.08.2009, which held that direct recruitment into a recognized department counts as the first appointment for time-bound pay scale and past service cannot be added. Though this Court in WPS No. 966/2021 (decided on 05.03.2021) directed the competent authority to consider his request, the representation was rejected on 25.03.2021, leading to challenge in the writ proceedings. The writ appeals, therefore, arise from the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for (i) promotion to Lecturer, and (ii) grant of time-bound pay scale, both of which he alleges were denied due to incorrect interpretation of rules and government circulars following his absorption into the School Education Department on 01.07.2018 pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Govt. on 30.06.2018. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner by the impugned common order. Thus, these appeals. 7. It would be apt to quote relevant part of the impugned order for proper adjudication of the appeals: Observation of learned Single Judge in respect of time bound pay 6 scale: “20. From submissions made by the parties, the Point emerged for determination by this Court in WPS No. 3369/2021 is:- “Whether the petitioner has completed 10 years of service as on 30.04.2013 or on 10.03.2017 to be eligible for consideration of grant of first time bound pay scale and whether the circular dated 02.11.2011 is still in force or not?” 21. From the records, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on 29.05.2009 and joined on 08.06.2009 as per the Panchayat Rules, 2007. The Panchayat Department has issued its first circular on 02.11.2011 by which, for cadre Teacher (Panchayat) and Shiksha Karmi was issued granting first time bound pay scale after completion of 12 years and second time bond pay scale after completion of 24 years. Subsequently, the Panchayat Department issued circular dated 01.05.2013 regarding pay scale at par with the Government teachers who have completed 8 years of service. Thereafter, another circular dated 14.11.2014 has been issued repealing the earlier circular dated 02.11.2011 on the count that the 7 Teachers in Panchayat Department have already been granted pay scale at par with the Government Teachers, therefore, it has no relevancy and accordingly, it has been cancelled retrospectively. Thereafter another clarification has been issued by the State Government on 28.04.2015 which clarifies that though the circular has been retrospectively cancelled but the circular dated 02.11.2011 granting time bound pay scale will be remained effective upto 30.04.2013, as such the Teachers employed in the Panchayat Department are allowed to get the benefit of time bound pay scale which has already been granted to them. 22. Admittedly, the minimum qualifying service for grant of time bound pay scale is 10 years. The petitioner was appointed on 29.05.2009 vide Annexure P/2, as such when the circular was remained in force upto 30.04.2013, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service which is basic eligibility criteria to get the pay scale. Tthus, the petitioner is not entitled to get first time bound pay scale. Even Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 261/2023 has held that in view of circular dated 10.03.2017, she has completed her 10 years of service, therefore, she is entitled for Kramonnati after completion of 10 years of service upto that time also the petitioner has not completed 8 10 years of service in view of the fact that he was appointed on 29.05.2009 and thereafter his services have been absorbed with the School Education Department in view of policy decision dated 30.06.2018. xxx xxx xxx 24. The further contention made by the petitioner that the circular dated 02.11.2011 is not cancelled without following the due procedure which is misconceived and deserves to be rejected in view of well settled position of law that the executive instructions which are meant for supplement the rules, can be cancelled or withdrawn by issuing fresh circular cancelling the earlier circular and no specific procedure is required to be followed. It is pertinent to mention here that the specific clause regarding cancellation of circular dated 02.11.2011 has been made in the circular dated 30.04.2013 cancelling earlier circular dated 02.11.2011, as such the contention made by the petitioner is rejected. 25. Even the petitioner is claiming parity with the other candidates on the strength of judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra) but he is unable to establish that he is at par with the 9 appellant though onus lies upon him only, therefore, he is also not entitled to get the benefit at par with the appellant in case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra). It is well settled position of law that for claiming parity, burden to prove lies upon the person claiming parity. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Jagjit Singh & others [(2017) 1 SCC 148] had held in paragraph 42.1 as under:- “42.1 The ‘onus of proof’, of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see – the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case10, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur15, the Steel Authority of India Limited case16, and the National Aluminum Company Limited case18).” 26. Accordingly, the Point emerged for determination in WPS No. 3369/2021 is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 10 Observation of learned Single Judge in respect of promotion: 27. From submissions made by the parties, the Point emerged for determination by this Court in WPS 2408/2024 is :- “Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the count of non-joinder of necessary parties or on the count of delay and laches.” 28. From perusal of records, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has neither pleaded nor made party the persons juniors to him who have been promoted. Thus, the writ petition for want of necessary party, is liable to be dismissed as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Kaul & others Vs. Union of India & others [(2012) 7 SCC 610] wherein it has been held that the relief cannot be granted since any direction to re-fix seniority is likely to jeopardize interest of those not impleaded. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 to 39 has held as under:- “36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Singh and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any 11 direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant. 37. In this context we may refer with profit to the decision in Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.[8] wherein it has been held thus: - “56. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority.” 38. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & Ors.[9] this Court while dealing with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non- impleadment of such a party in the matter when the selection process is assailed observed thus: - “9. ……. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and proforma party and further held that if a person who is likely to 12 suffer from the order of the Court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. More so, proviso to Order I, Rule IX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called CPC) provide that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141, CPC but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat; AIR 1965 SC 1153; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal, Khodidas Barat & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 2105; and Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 88). 10. In Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 167; and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 768 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 824), it has been held that if a person challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at least some of them are necessary parties.” 13 39. From the aforesaid enunciation of law there cannot be any trace of doubt that an affected party has to be impleaded so that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is not put into any hazard.” 29. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others [(2020) 4 SCC 86] has held in paragraph 81 as under:- “81. The present is a case where the writ petitioners had not raised any challenge to a particular qualification of any individual candidate rather their challenge was that without scrutiny large number of candidates, who were claiming qualification equivalent to CCC certificate have been included without there being any scrutiny and without they fulfil the qualification. The case of the writ petitioners was that the computer certificate issued by the private organisations and unregistered societies, who neither were recognised by the State Government or Central Government or by any statutory body could not issue any certificate. We may further notice that Division Bench also noticed the above argument of non- impleadment of all the selected candidates in the writ petition but Division Bench has not based its 14 judgment on the above argument. When the inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process, the aggrieved parties can complain and in such cases necessity of impleadment of each and every person cannot be insisted. Furthermore, when select list contained names of 2211 candidates, it becomes unnecessary to implead every candidate in view of the nature of the challenge, which was levelled in the writ petition. Moreover, few selected candidates were also impleaded in the writ petitions in representative capacity.” 30. Similarly, the petitioner has claimed promotion in the year 2015 & 2016 by filing the petition in the year 2023 i.e. after lapse of more than 7-8 years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has depreciated the practice of filing writ petition at the belated stage, particularly claiming relief of promotion though no limitation is prescribed but it should be challenged expeditiously, otherwise it will disturb the whole administrative functioning of the department. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Akshya Bisoi & another Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & others [(2018) 3 SCC 391] has held in paragraph 25 as under:- 15 “25. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the grant of relief would unsettle the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the Fourth respondent well over twelve years since the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment as Additional Professors. This cannot be done. Some expressions of opinion in favour of the First petitioner in the departmental processes may have engendered a sense of hope. But that cannot furnish a legal ground to unsettle something that has held the field for long years. We close the proceedings with the expectation that these distinguished doctors will pursue their avocations at AIIMS without rancour. Our decision on seniority is no reflection upon their distinguished service to a premier national institution.” 31. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Shukla & others Vs. Arvind Rai & others [(2022) 12 SCC 579] has held in paragraph 24 to 26 as under:- “24. We may now discuss the law on the point regarding delay in approaching the court and in particular challenge to a seniority list. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on a judgment of 16 this Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (supra). Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining the petition despite long standing seniority filed at a belated stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point including Constitution Bench judgments and ultimately in paragraph 30 observed that a seniority list which remains in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in paragraph 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Paragraph 30 is reproduced below: - “30. Thus in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a 17 reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.” 25. On the other hand, the Division Bench while shutting out the appellants on the ground of delay relied upon following judgments of this Court. (I) Dayaram Asanand Gursahani vs. State of Maharashtra and others (ii) B.S. Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab and others (iii) Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza vs. Union of India and others (iv) R.S. Makashi and others vs. I.M. Menon and others. 26. In the case of Dayaram Asanand Gursahani (supra), there was a delay of 9 years. In the case of B.S. Bajwa (supra), there was a delay of more than a decade. In Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza(supra), the delay was of 15 years and in R.S. Makashi(supra) there was a delay of 8 years. In all these cases, this 18 court has recorded that the delay has not been explained. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (Supra) is a judgment of 2010, which has laid down that, three to four years would be a reasonable period to challenge a seniority list and also that any challenge (1984) 3 SCC 36 (1998) 2 SCC 523 (1976) 1 SCC 599 (1982) 1 SCC 379 beyond the aforesaid period would require satisfactory explanation” 32. Even the respondents have clarified that the petitioner was junior to the candidates who have been promoted on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and Lecturer (Mathematics) as he has done post graduation in the year 2021 as evident from averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition itself. As such, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion in Mathematics subject in the year 2015-16 but now he has been eligible and the respondents in the return have already stated that the case of the petitioner is likely to be considered along with other candidates for promotion. 33. Thus, the writ petition on the count of delay and latches, inability to establish his eligibility for promotion as well as on account of non-joinder of necessary parity, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the 19 way of the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the submission made in the return. 34. Accordingly, the Point emerged for determination in WPS No. 2408/2024 is also answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Submission of the petitioner in respect of the promotion (WA No. 650/2025) : 8. (a) The petitioner, appearing in person submits that he was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 29.05.2009 and joined on 08.06.2009, having already possessed the requisite B.Ed. qualification obtained on 21.05.2008. He further submits that under the Rules 2007, which were prevailing at the time of his appointment, the prescribed qualification for Shiksha Karmi Grade-II was graduation with second division and B.Ed. Subsequently, the said Rules were repealed upon the promulgation of the Rules, 2012, under which the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, II and I stood redesignated as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Teacher (Panchayat) and Lecturer (Panchayat) respectively. He submits that Schedule-II and the Appendix to the Rules of 2012 prescribe the qualification and promotional criteria for various posts, wherein the post of Teacher (Panchayat) requires graduation with 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education or graduation with 50% marks with B.Ed., and the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) 20 requires a Postgraduate degree in the concerned subject along with B.Ed. For the subject of Mathematics, the prescribed qualification is Post- Graduation in Mathematics/Applied Mathematics. The petitioner contents that he completed Post-Graduation in Hindi Literature (57%) on 31.07.2010 and subsequently obtained M.Sc. Mathematics (77.75%) on 12.03.2021, and therefore fulfilled the requisite educational qualifications for promotion first as Lecturer (Hindi) and later as Lecturer (Mathematics). (b) It is the specific submission of the petitioner that he completed 7 years of continuous service on 08.06.2016 and thus became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) as per Schedule-IV of the 2012 Rules, which prescribes 7 years of teaching experience on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II/Teacher (Panchayat) for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I/Lecturer (Panchayat). He states that despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria and despite the seniority list circulated for the DPC held on 06.11.2015, his case was not placed before the DPC for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi). (c) The petitioner further submits that the State Government issued circular dated 16.02.2015 mandating annual convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee; however, no DPC was convened in the relevant period, and consequently his promotional rights stood illegally frustrated. He also refers to the State Government’s order dated 21 31.12.2021 granting one-time relaxation for promotion to the post of Lecturer from Teacher/Teacher (LB)/Primary Headmaster. He contends that the said circular should have been applied to his case, particularly when vacant posts of Lecturer (Mathematics) were admittedly available, but the respondents failed to consider his claim. (d) According to the petitioner, having been denied consideration, he submitted a representation before respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 thereafter sought a report from Respondents No. 7 and 8 by letter dated 31.01.2022 directing them to examine the petitioner’s case within three days; however, no action ensued. The petitioner was, therefore, compelled to approach this Court in WPS No. 8237 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2023 directing Respondent No. 3 to consider his representation within 45 days. The said direction was not complied with and only after he initiated contempt proceedings did Respondent No. 3 decide the matter vide order dated 09.02.2024. (e) Assailing the said order, the petitioner, preferred a Writ Petition bearing WPS No. 2408/2024, wherein he submitted that the rejection is arbitrary and contrary to the rules. He contended that Respondent No. 3 erroneously relied on the seniority list as on 01.04.2022, wherein his name appears at Serial No. 3074, and on the ground that only 20% vacancies in Mathematics were available and no DPC was held in 2021. He argued that non-holding of DPC cannot prejudice his vested right to 22 be considered for promotion from due date. He further averred that rejection of his claim by referring to the absorption policy dated 30.06.2018 is unsustainable, as the said policy cannot override statutory service rules nor deprive him of promotional benefits earned prior to absorption. (f) It is his contention that he has been continuously serving from 10.10.2008 the date of his first appointment and therefore his total service must be counted from that date. He further submits that the Appendix to the 2012 Rules and the NCTE Regulations of 1993, 2009 and 2014 support his eligibility for promotion. He argues that the respondents have acted mechanically while rejecting the one-time relaxation benefits dated 31.12.2021, which were specifically intended to address long-pending promotional stagnation. According to the petitioner, the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective the impugned order. He would submit that the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and latches despite the fact that in the year 2017, the process of promotion was undertaken for the post of Lecturer in various subject except the subject of Hindi and hence, the petitioner had no opportunity to approach this Court, thereafter by order dated 18.06.2018, pursuant to the order passed by the Counsel of Minister, there was complete paused on the process of direct recruitment and promotion which was revoked on 16.10.2024, when the right of the petitioner to 23 consider promotion was evolved. (g) Petitioner would submit that in an identical matter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2693/2018, one teacher namely Sandhya Khalko was given the promotion with retrospective effect. He would submit that till 31.12.2015, there were 190 posts of Lecturer (Hindi) were lying vacant and the authorities are required to fill the same in the ratio of 50:50 (i.e. direct recruitment and promotion). He would submit that as per the gradation list, he is fully entitled for the said post. Despite, the aforesaid factual situation, the authorities have not considered the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) from the date of his actual entitlement and hence, the impugned order may be quashed and the petitioner be extended the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 08.06.2016 on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Submission of the petitioner in respect of the time bound pay scale (WA No. 699/2025) (i) The petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 rejecting his representation suffers from a complete misreading of the applicable circulars and a failure to appreciate the statutory and policy framework governing the grant of time-bound pay scales. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on 29.05.2009 and thereafter regularised on 08.06.2011. In view of the 24 subsequent policy changes, particularly the circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government reducing the qualifying service for Assistant Teachers for grant of first and second time-bound pay scales from 12 & 24 years to 10 & 20 years respectively, the petitioner became squarely entitled to the first time-bound pay scale on completion of 10 years of service. (ii) The petitioner submits that the reasoning in the impugned order that past service as Shiksha Karmi is not liable to be counted or that the order dated 02.11.2011 stands cancelled is wholly untenable. Firstly, neither in the circular dated 01.05.2013 nor in the clarification dated 28.04.2015 is there any reference that the earlier order dated 02.11.2011 stood fully withdrawn with retrospective consequence so as to deprive employees of benefits already accrued or accruing. The cancellation contemplated in the order dated 14.11.2014 is limited to the prospective application of revised pay parity and even that order expressly preserves the applicability of the earlier circulars. (iii) The petitioner further submits that the State itself, by issuing the circular dated 10.03.2017, has recognized that the time-bound pay scale is a financial progression scheme independent of promotion and directly tied to length of service. Hence, once the State adopted a uniform standard that the employees would receive the first time-bound pay scale on completion of 10 years, the petitioner, being absorbed into the School 25 Education Department and performing identical duties as Assistant Teachers, cannot be arbitrarily excluded. The circular nowhere excludes absorbed Shiksha Karmis nor does it prescribe that their pre-absorption service will be disregarded for purposes of time-bound pay scale. The respondents’ interpretation that only post absorption service should count is contrary to the express language of clause 4 of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018, which mandates that for the purpose of extending service benefits, the service shall be counted from 01.07.2018; however, this clause operates only prospectively and cannot nullify the accrued right to consideration for the time-bound pay scale which matured upon completion of 10 years on 29.05.2019. The petitioner completed 10 years long before the absorption clause could take effect so as to deprive him of the benefit. (iv) It is further submitted that this Court, in WPS No. 966/2021, has already directed the Director, DPI, to consider the petitioner’s case in light of memo dated 09.10.2019, which clearly envisages grant of Kramonnati/time-bound pay scale to those teachers completing the prescribed period. The rejection order dated 25.03.2021, however, does not consider this memo at all and proceeds on a completely irrelevant premise, rendering the decision non-speaking, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14. The petitioner states that the authorities have misapplied the concept of “first appointment” contained in the circular dated 10.08.2009; this circular only clarifies that for counting 8/10 years, the 26 direct appointment in a recognised department will be treated as the first appointment. Since the petitioner was appointed under a statutory recruitment process in an educational institution recognised by the State, there is no basis to treat his appointment of 2009 as anything other than his “first appointment”. (v) The petitioner also submits that the State cannot adopt shifting stands on one hand absorbing the petitioner and taking the benefit of his entire service for seniority and cadre determination, and on the other hand refusing to count the same service for time-bound pay progression. Such selective counting is impermissible and amounts to hostile discrimination. The petitioner has not only served for more than 10 years but has also demonstrated unblemished service throughout. Therefore, denial of time-bound benefit on hyper-technical interpretation, contrary to the benevolent nature of the scheme, is arbitrary and liable to be struck down. The petitioner therefore prays that the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 be quashed and a direction be issued to grant him the first time-bound pay scale from the date he completed 10 years of service along with consequential benefits. Submission of the State in respect of the promotion (WA No. 650/2025) : 9. (A) Learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as the 27 petitioner’s claims relating both to promotion and to grant of time-bound pay scale are barred by law, facts, and settled service jurisprudence. It is argued that the petitioner’s challenge to denial of promotion suffers from incurable defects of delay and laches, non-joinder of necessary parties, and non-fulfilment of essential eligibility, inasmuch as the petitioner seeks to reopen promotional processes of 2015–16 after an unexplained delay of nearly eight years, which is impermissible in law. (B) Learned counsel would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of cases held that service matters such as seniority and promotion cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is further submitted that although the petitioner alleges that several persons were promoted, none of them have been impleaded either in person or in a representative capacity, rendering the petition not maintainable. He would further submit that the petitioner was in any case not eligible for promotion in 2015–16 because he did not possess the mandatory postgraduate qualification prescribed under the 2012 Rules for promotion to the post of Lecturer, and therefore his name could not have been considered irrespective of his position in the seniority list. (C) It is contended that the petitioner’s reliance on the one-time relaxation order dated 31.12.2021 is misconceived because (i) the petitioner did not possess PG qualification at the relevant time, (ii) no DPC was held in 2021, and (iii) only 20% vacancies existed in 28 Mathematics and none in Hindi, hence the relaxation did not confer any enforceable right. The petitioner’s absorption into the School Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018 also does not revive stale claims or entitle him to retrospective promotion under an earlier cadre or earlier rules. The State has already undertaken that, after acquiring PG in 2021, the petitioner will be considered along with others in the next DPC, and therefore no mandamus can be issued for retrospective promotion. Submission of the State in respect of the time bound pay scale (WA No. 699/2025) (I) As far as time bound pay scale is concerned, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner did not complete the requisite qualifying service for time bound pay scale during the period when the earlier circular dated 02.11.2011 was operational, which itself had been superseded and retrospectively cancelled. As per the circulars dated 01.05.2013, 14.11.2014 and the clarification dated 28.04.2015, the circular dated 02.11.2011 was applicable only up to 30.04.2013. However, the petitioner joined service only on 08.06.2009 and had completed merely four years of service as on 30.04.2013, making him ineligible for the scheme. (II) It is further submitted that the subsequent circular dated 10.03.2017 prescribing 10/20-year time-bound scales applies only to regular Government servants appointed under the 1999 pay-progression 29 framework and not to Shiksha Karmis governed separately by the 2007 and 2012 Panchayat Rules, as also clarified by the Finance Department in memorandum dated 10.08.2009, which states that qualifying service can be counted only from the first direct appointment in a Government department. The petitioner became a Government servant only upon absorption on 01.07.2018, and therefore his earlier Panchayat service cannot be counted for financial progression schemes meant for State employees. He would submit that Sikhsha Karmis are not the holder of civil post under the State, and therefore, they are not Govt. servant. (III) Learned counsel would further submits that the submission that the circular dated 02.11.2011 was withdrawn without procedural compliance is untenable as an executive circular can always be superseded by another executive circular without any special procedure. The petitioner had no vested right in a scheme for which he had not completed the qualifying service, and therefore the rejection of his representation dated 25.03.2021 is fully in accordance with law. Accordingly, the State submits that both sets of claims i.e. promotion as well as time-bound pay scale are devoid of merit and that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. 10. We have heard the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. Bare perusal of the record would show that the petitioner was initially 30 appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III on 01.10.2008 by Janpad Panchayat Ramanujnagar and posted at Middle School, Narayanpur. Subsequently, he was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade II on 29.05.2009 by Zila Panchayat Surguja in the Mathematics faculty, and his services on the said post were confirmed on 08.06.2011. Thereafter, he was granted the revised pay scale of ₹9300-34800 with grade pay ₹4200 on 22.12.2016. His services were later absorbed into the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, on 30.06.2018 as Teacher (LB cadre), Tribal Category, and ultimately, during pendency of the instant Writ Appeal, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer (LB) vide order dated 25.09.2025. 12. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the entire service record, this Court finds that the petitioner had acquired the requisite higher educational qualification for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) on 31.07.2010, which was well in advance of the date on which he completed seven years of qualifying service on 08.06.2016, as mandated under Schedule-IV of the Rules, 2012 for promotion from Teacher (Panchayat) to Lecturer (Panchayat). It further stands established from the gradation list circulated in connection with the DPC held on 06.11.2015 and the contemporaneous record also reveals that as on 31.12.2015, nearly 190 sanctioned posts of Lecturer (Hindi) were lying vacant. Even, the petitioner is having the requisite qualification and he is the senior person and despite the said fact, the respondent authorities 31 have not placed the candidature of the petitioner before the DPC and for that reason, he could not have been promoted to the said post. Thus, it is quite vivid that on account of error committed by the authorities concerned, the petitioner has been deprived for promotion and since then he is running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance. 13. The explanation of the respondents that no DPC was held for Lecturer (Hindi) during the relevant period cannot, in the opinion of this Court, defeat or dilute the petitioner’s accrued right of consideration for promotion from the date on which he became eligible. It is trite that although no employee can claim an absolute right to promotion, the right to be fairly and timely considered for promotion is a facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The non-convening of DPC, being an administrative omission, cannot extinguish this right nor can it deprive the petitioner of legitimate career progression. The State itself had issued a circular dated 16.02.2015 mandating annual DPCs; despite the existence of vacancies and eligible candidates, this statutory obligation was not adhered to. Consequently, the petitioner’s legitimate expectation stood frustrated solely due to administrative inaction. 14. The rejection order dated 09.02.2024 is found to be legally unsustainable as it places reliance upon materials wholly irrelevant to the petitioner’s claim such as the seniority list of 2022, the absorption policy dated 30.06.2018, and the vacancy position of Mathematics which bear no 32 nexus with determination of the petitioner’s entitlement for promotion to Lecturer (Hindi) in the year 2016. The petitioner’s eligibility and claim must be adjudged on the basis of the gradation list and vacancy position existing in 2015–2016, and not on subsequent administrative developments. Once it is demonstrated that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications and adequate promotional posts existed, the authorities were duty-bound to convene a DPC and consider his candidature. The absorption policy of 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively to divest rights that had already crystallized under the statutory framework prevailing in 2016. 15. The finding of delay and laches recorded by the learned Single Judge is also untenable in view of the peculiar facts of the present case. The undisputed documentary material shows that the DPC for Lecturer (Hindi) was not convened at all during the relevant period owing to the administrative instructions dated 18.06.2018, and the promotional process was revived only on 16.10.2024. The delay is thus attributable entirely to the inaction of the respondents and not to any negligence on the part of the petitioner, who had been consistently pursuing his claim through repeated representations and earlier litigation. In such circumstances, strict application of the doctrine of laches cannot operate to extinguish an accrued statutory right, particularly when the delay is occasioned by the employer. 33 16. In light of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was eligible and entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) with effect from 08.06.2016, and the failure of the respondents to place his case before the DPC for the said year is legally unsustainable. It is noteworthy to mention here that the notional promotion can be granted when an employee is unfairly delayed in promotion due to administrative errors or other issues beyond his control. To ensure fairness, correct seniority should be established since when he is actually entitled or deserving promotion. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order in respect of declining the petitioner to grant relief of promotion by the learned Single Judge, deserves to be quashed, and the petitioner is held entitled to promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) from the date of his eligibility. Thus, the respondents authorities are directed to revisit the matter and convene a DPC as on 08.06.2016 and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and if he is found eligible in all aspects, pass an appropriate order, by extending the benefit of notional promotion from the date on which he was actually entitled, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 18. As far as extending the benefit of time bound pay scale by counting the service period of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment 08/06/2009 is concerned, since in the preceding paragraph of this 34 judgment, this Court directed the authorities to revisit and convene the DPC for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) w.e.f. 08.06.2016 i.e. on completion of service of seven years, at this juncture, no direction for grant of time bound pay scale can be issued for the reason, that if the petitioner promoted within 10 years, he has no right to claim two advantages on both fronts. In fact, the time bound pay scale is granted only when though the candidate is entitled for promotion, however, on account of non-availability of posts, then in that case only, the same can be extended. 19. In the result, WA No. 650/2025 seeking promotion is allowed to the extent indicated in para 17 of this judgment and WA No. 699/2025 seeking time bound pay scale is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri