1 2025:CGHC:25194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1342 of 2019 1 - Smt. Geeta Jha W/o Shri Mukesh Jha, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Service (Ma In Sanskrit ), Presently Working As Lecturer, Goverment Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, New Mantaralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Department, Of Tribal Welfare, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner (Rev.) Department Of Tribal Welfare Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Assistant Commissioner Department Of Tribal Welfare, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Principal, Government Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School - Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Rupak Kujur Lecturer (Sanskrit) Goverment Boys Higher Secondary School - Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ku. Sujata Toppo Lecturer (History), Goverment Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title, as taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates For State/Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.06.20 10:21:17 +0530 2 For Respondent No.5 For Respondents No.6 to 8 : : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate None. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the seniority to petitioner from 03.10.2013, on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) with all consequential benefit including arrears of financial benefit since 03.10.2013, as provided to the Respondents No.7 & 8, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 01.07.1998 by the Municipal Council, Jashpur Nagar and she was regularized on the said post on 08.09.2003, thereafter, she was promoted on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure-P/2). Subsequently, no promotion was made, rather, she was promoted on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) vide Annexure-P/9 dated 02.04.2018, whereas post for Lecturer was sanctioned by the respondent authorities in the year 2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent authorities had sanctioned one post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) for departmental teachers to be filled by promotion, despite that, promotion of petitioner was 3 not made in the year 2013, whereas respondents No.7 & 8 were appointed through direct recruitment, in which, respondent No.7 was appointed under Schedule Tribe category on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). He would further submit that petitioner was deprived from promotion on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) for about 5 years without any reason, however, she was promoted on 02.04.2018 vide Annexure-P/9, therefore, he prays that her seniority for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) may be directed to be counted from 03.10.2013 i.e. date of sanction of post for Lecturer (Sanskrit) to be filled by promotion from the existing teachers (Sanskrit). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State-Respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that State is formal party, as such, they have not filed reply and main contesting party is respondent No.5. 6. Respondents No.5 has filed its reply stating inter alia that though one promotional post for Lecturer (Sanskrit) was sanctioned in the year 2013, thereafter, vide Annexure-P/6 dated 03.10.2013, respondents No.7 & 8 were appointed by direct recruitment on various posts along with appointment of respondent No.7 on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) against the post sanctioned for appointment through direct recruitment, but the petitioner was promoted vide Annexure-P/9 dated 02.04.2018. Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 referring to his reply, would submit that, since meeting of Municipal Council was not convened earlier and the issue of promotion was not putforth before it for consideration of the same, as such, petitioner could not be promoted prior to year 2018. He would further submit that petitioner cannot claim promotion as well as seniority as a right, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. During course of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred page no.39 of the record, as sanction order of various posts of 4 Lecturer, which has been issued by Office of Municipal Council, Jashpur, District Jashpur, but it is not a sanction order of the said posts mentioned in that page, rather, it is a list of reservation roster, nothing has been mentioned in that page that the said one post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was sanctioned in the year 2013, rather, it only denotes that one post for Lecturer (Sanskrit) to be made from promotion of teachers of the said faculty. No order has been filed by the petitioner to demonstrate the fact that in the year 2013, one post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was sanctioned. Further, for the sake of argument, if it is considered to be so, despite that, if promotion of petitioner was not made in the year 2013, then, she ought to have filed representation for redressal of her grievance before the competent authority, but such representation was made first time by her vide Annexure-P/10 dated 22.01.2019. The instant petition was filed on 11.01.2019. Even otherwise, promotion as well as seniority cannot be claimed as matter of right, rather, it can be considered after getting suitable candidate. 9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merits in the instant petition, hence the same is disposed of. However, liberty is left with the petitioner to make representation before the respondent authorities for redressal of her grievance, if promotional post for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was available at the relevant point of time. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar