1 2025:CGHC:60659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2610 of 2023 1 - Ram Kumar Sahu S/o Ranjeet Prasad Aged About 49 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary T.W.D. School Khutrapara, Block Bhaiyyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shailesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Aged About 44 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Dudhaniyapara Block Bhaiyyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Devnarayan, Aged About 37 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Khutrapara, Block Bhaiyyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mordwaj Upadhyay S/o Shri Paras Nath Upadhyay, Aged About 45 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Junapara (Chendra), Block Odagi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mukesh Chand Gupta S/o Shi Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 47 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Dudhaniyapara, Block Odagi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Dhansai Paikra S/o Kewlaram Aged About 50 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Darraghat (Dawansara), Block Odagi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 7 - Hiwal Chan Paikra S/o Veersai Paikra Aged About 48 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Khadauli Khas, Block Odagi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Ramnarayan Paikra, S/o Shri Agwan Sai Paikra, Aged About 49 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Kondopani Block Odagi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Prakash Chandra Singh S/o Ujit Ram, Aged About 45 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Bandhpara (Chanagadi), Block Bhaiyyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Hemant Kumar Rajwade S/o Shvi Ram, Aged About 50 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Pawanpur, Block Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Joint Director, Public Instruction Sarguja, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 3 Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this illegal rejection for the application submitted by the petitioner which has been informed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/2) may kindly set aside and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to appear in the interview for the post of ANM at Distt. Baloda Bazar, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers (Panchayat) and, after completing eight years of service, were absorbed as Assistant Teachers (L.B.) on 01.07.2018. Their service conditions are governed by the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Education and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, under which trained and graduate Assistant Teachers (L.B.) are eligible for promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher, whereas non-graduates are eligible for promotion as Head Master, 4 Primary School (Annexure P-2). The State Government relaxed the required experience from five years to three years vide order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P-3), and the Joint Director issued instructions dated 25.01.2022 clarifying that promotions to Upper Division Teacher must be completed first, and thereafter promotions to Head Master Primary School (Annexure P-4). A seniority list as on 01.04.2021 was prepared for promotion to Upper Division Teacher, in which the Petitioners, being trained graduates (D.Ed./B.Ed.), were duly included (Annexure P-5). However, due to an interim order in another case, the process for Upper Division Teacher could not proceed, and the Petitioners were instead promoted to the post of Head Master Primary School (Annexure P-6), with an assurance that they would be considered for Upper Division Teacher once the interim order was vacated. After dismissal of that case, the process for promotion to Upper Division Teacher has now been initiated, but the Respondents have declined to consider the Petitioners on the ground that they have already been promoted as Head Masters, contrary to the earlier instructions that promotions to Upper Division Teacher must precede promotions to Head Master (Annexure P-1). The Petitioners never sought promotion as Head Master and, being trained graduates, are fully eligible for promotion as Upper Division Teacher. They are even willing to forgo their Head Master promotion if necessary, for which they have already submitted an application (Annexure P-7). Hence, the present petition. 5 3. None appeared for the Petitioners in the first round. However, subsequently, Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha appeared on behalf of the Petitioners and submits that the action of the Respondents in denying the Petitioners consideration for promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher is arbitrary, unconstitutional and discriminatory, and therefore unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the Joint Director’s instructions, particularly Clause 32, categorically mandate that all eligible Assistant Teachers (L.B.) who are trained graduates must first be promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher, and only thereafter should promotions to the post of Head Master Primary School be considered. The Petitioners’ names were duly included in the seniority list prepared as on 01.04.2021 for promotion to Upper Division Teacher, confirming their eligibility. However, instead of promoting them to the said post, they were wrongly shifted to the post of Head Master Primary School due to circumstances beyond their control, and such fortuitous placement cannot be used as a ground to deny them their rightful promotion to the Upper Division Teacher cadre. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the Petitioners have no vested right to claim promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher. It is contended that the Petitioners were validly placed against the post of Head Master Primary School in accordance with the prevailing rules and administrative exigencies, and such placement cannot be termed 6 illegal or arbitrary. The State Counsel submits that Clause 32 of the Joint Director’s instructions cannot override the statutory recruitment rules, and promotions are required to be made strictly as per the applicable rules, availability of vacancies, and the seniority-cum-eligibility criteria prescribed therein. It is further argued that the Petitioners’ inclusion in the seniority list dated 01.04.2021 does not, by itself, confer any enforceable right to promotion unless they satisfy all conditions and a vacancy exists. The State Counsel asserts that the Petitioners were considered in accordance with the rules, and no illegality, arbitrariness, or discriminatory treatment has been meted out to them. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the record and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is evident that the Petitioners were promoted and placed on the post of Headmaster (Primary School) in accordance with the prevailing rules and administrative requirements. 7. A careful examination of the Gazette Notification dated 05.03.2019 reveals that the pay matrix level applicable to the post of Upper Division Teacher and the post of Headmaster (Primary School) is equivalent. When two posts lie in the same pay matrix level, movement from one post to the other does not constitute a 7 promotion in the legal sense but only a lateral shift, which is impermissible unless specifically provided for in the statutory rules. The material on record further demonstrates that the Petitioners had voluntarily accepted promotion to the post of Headmaster (Primary School). Once a candidate accepts a promotion to an equivalent-grade post and assumes the duties of that post, he or she cannot subsequently claim a right to be promoted to another post carrying the same pay matrix, merely on the basis of nomenclature or personal preference. 8. Having accepted the post of Headmaster (Primary School) with full knowledge of its pay level and responsibilities, the Petitioners are estopped from contending that they should now be promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher, which is not a higher promotional post under the applicable rules. The acceptance of such promotion amounts to an election of the career path attached to that cadre. It also stands established from the record that the next higher promotional posts available to the Petitioners, upon completion of requisite service and fulfillment of eligibility criteria, are Headmaster (Middle School) or Lecturer, and not the post of Upper Division Teacher. 9. In view of the equivalence in pay matrix level, the Petitioners’ conscious acceptance of promotion, and the absence of any rule enabling a lateral shift to the Upper Division Teacher cadre, no illegality or irregularity can be attributed to the decision of the 8 Respondents in not considering the Petitioners for promotion to the said post. 10. Accordingly, the Petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought. Their proper remedy lies only in being considered, as per rules, for the next higher promotional post in the hierarchy. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha