1 2026:CGHC:8311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5075 of 2023 1 - Ratnesh Dubey S/o Shankar Prasad Dubey, Aged About 58 Years Saraju Bagicha, C.B. Heights, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department School, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director, Public Education Directorate, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/02/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents authorities for issuing the promotion order's prior to deciding the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 objections of the seniority or the petitioner on the gradation list. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may issue a direction or orders to the respondent no. 2 to count the seniority of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment dated 10.07.1998 thereafter placed her name accordingly on the proper place of the gradation list as per rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh civil services (recruitment and condition) Rules 1961. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted in the favour petitioner as may deem fit by this Hon'ble Court as per the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I vide order dated 10.07.1998 and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Pamgarh, District Bilaspur, pursuant to which he joined and rendered continuous service. Upon successful completion of the prescribed probation period, he was duly confirmed on the said post by the competent appointing authority vide confirmation order dated 04.04.2002. Thereafter, by transfer order dated 28.09.2007, the petitioner was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Pamgarh, District Bilaspur to Government Higher Secondary School, Koni. Subsequently, in light of the policy decision of the State Government and the circular dated 30.06.2018 issued by respondent No.1 providing for absorption of Shiksha Karmis who had completed eight years of service into the School Education 3 Department, the District Education Officer issued an absorption order dated 01.07.2018, whereby the services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Education Department. After such absorption, a provisional gradation list of Lecturers (L.B.) for District Bilaspur was issued for the first time on 01.04.2023, and objections were invited vide official communication dated 14.10.2022; however, while determining seniority, the respondents counted the petitioner’s seniority from 28.09.2007 instead of from his initial date of appointment i.e. 10.07.1998, thereby ignoring the period of service rendered from 10.07.1998 to 28.09.2007 and placing his name at Sr. No. 1222 in the impugned gradation list below his juniors. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation claiming that his seniority ought to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment in terms of Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Conditions) Rules, 1961 governing determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and absorbed employees; however, despite submission of objections, the respondents have neither decided the same nor finalized the gradation list, and have allegedly proceeded to initiate promotions from the post of Lecturer (L.B.) to Principal without adjudicating the petitioner’s claim, thereby depriving him of consequential service benefits and prompting the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary, 4 unconstitutional and contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence. It is contended that the respondents have erred in reckoning the seniority of the petitioner from 28.09.2007, i.e., the date of his transfer, instead of from 10.07.1998, the date of his initial appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I. According to learned counsel, once the petitioner was appointed through due process and subsequently confirmed in service, his entire length of service from the initial date of appointment is required to be counted for all service purposes, including determination of seniority. The action of respondent No.2 in ignoring the period of service rendered from 10.07.1998 to 28.09.2007 is stated to be ex facie illegal and in violation of the applicable statutory framework. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted in contravention of Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Conditions) Rules, 1961, which governs the determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and employees absorbed from other services. Learned counsel argues that the seniority of a Lecturer (L.B.) cannot be counted from the date of assumption of charge at the transferred place, as has been done in the present case, but must be determined in accordance with the statutory rules, taking into account the initial entry into service. The impugned gradation list, therefore, suffers from manifest illegality and non-application of mind. Learned counsel further contends that due to the arbitrary fixation of seniority, several persons junior to the 5 petitioner have been wrongly placed above him in the gradation list and have consequently been promoted to the post of Principal, thereby causing grave prejudice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of his rightful promotional prospects solely on account of the erroneous computation of seniority by respondent No.2. The petitioner’s seniority, it is argued, ought to have been counted from 10.07.1998, and had the same been done, he would have been considered for promotion in accordance with his legitimate position in the cadre. It is also vehemently submitted that the respondent authorities have acted in undue haste and in violation of principles of fairness by issuing promotion orders from the post of Lecturer (L.B.) to Principal without first deciding the petitioner’s objections to the provisional gradation list. The representation submitted by the petitioner challenging the incorrect fixation of seniority has been kept pending for a considerable period without any decision, yet promotions have been effected on the basis of the disputed gradation list. Such action, according to learned counsel, is per se bad in law and unsustainable, as it defeats the very purpose of inviting objections and violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by treating the petitioner in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned seniority determination and consequential promotions be set aside and appropriate directions 6 be issued to refix the petitioner’s seniority from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, as the seniority of the petitioner has been rightly determined in accordance with the applicable rules and circulars governing the cadre. It is contended that although the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I on 10.07.1998 by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur and was later confirmed in service, the material fact which disentitles him from claiming seniority from the said date is that his transfer from District Janjgir-Champa to District Bilaspur was effected on his own request. Learned counsel submits that after reorganization of districts in 1999, Government Higher Secondary School, Pamgarh fell within District Janjgir-Champa and the appointing authority became the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir- Champa; thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily applied for a No Objection Certificate seeking transfer to District Bilaspur, which was duly approved by the competent authorities of both districts, and pursuant thereto, he was relieved by order dated 28.09.2007 and joined at Bilaspur on the same date. It is emphasized that an own-request transfer involving change of district carries the necessary legal consequence of loss of inter se seniority, as specifically provided in the circular dated 17.06.2014 issued by the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, which categorically stipulates that on transfer of a Teacher (Panchayat) 7 on own request, his seniority shall be fixed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place and shall be counted from the date of joining at such place. The said position has also been reiterated in the subsequent communication dated 06.07.2018 issued by the School Education Department while framing guidelines for determination of seniority of Lecturer (LB) upon absorption. It is thus submitted that Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Conditions) Rules, 1961 has no application to the present case, as the petitioner’s claim does not involve determination of seniority between direct recruits and absorbed employees in the same recruitment year, but rather arises out of a voluntary inter-district transfer governed by specific executive instructions. Learned State counsel further submits that in compliance with the direction of this Court dated 25.07.2023, the matter was examined in detail by the District Education Officer. It is therefore contended that the petitioner, having consciously opted for own-request transfer with full knowledge of its consequences and having joined at the transferred district without protest, cannot now seek restoration of seniority from his initial appointment date. The gradation list has been prepared strictly in accordance with the governing circulars and guidelines, and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to decide the objections of the petitioner with regard to fixation of seniority prior to issuance of promotion orders and to count the seniority of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 10.07.1998, and to place her at the appropriate position in the gradation list in terms of Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Recruitment and Conditions) Rules, 1961. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident that the controversy raised in the present petition is no longer res integra. An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in WPS No.2263 of 2021, WPS No.2354 of 2021 and WPS No.356 of 2022, wherein this Court, after detailed consideration, held that there is no distinction between inter-district transfer on self-request and administrative transfer so far as seniority is concerned, and that seniority has to be reckoned from the initial date of appointment. It was categorically observed that a government servant cannot be rendered junior merely by virtue of transfer to another district and that any circular to the contrary would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court, in the aforesaid batch of petitions, held that the gradation list prepared by placing such employees below their juniors on account of transfer was 9 erroneous and required rectification by placing the petitioners at their appropriate place in accordance with their initial date of appointment, along with consequential benefits. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 are quoted below for ready reference : “9. The grievance of the petitioners as projected by them seems that they are raising dispute stating that by transfer, they have been placed in the gradation list below to their juniors. The petitioners were serving in the erstwhile District of Balodabazar-Bhatapara, however, subsequently when a new District i.e. Balodabazar and Bhatapara has been created from Raipur, they have opted for old District Raipur, in which they were earlier posted and, as such, they cannot be placed in the gradation list below to their juniors. So far as the law for gradation list is concerned, the gradation list are being prepared on the basis of initial service and thereafter to be considered according to their merits. The gradation list according to the service rules of the petitioners would be considered on the basis of merit cum seniority. There is no dispute at all that on merits, the petitioners are not objecting to their juniors. The only thing against the petitioners is that they have opted for their old District Raipur and not for newly created District Balodabazar- Bhatapara. Earlier, a common gradation list was prepared in which the petitioners were above their juniors and they have been placed on their right place, however, due to creation of new District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, they have opted for old District Raipur, thereafter, their gradation list was 10 prepared in which they have been placed below to their juniors who were already working at Raipur District. 10. Considering the arguments advanced by the parties, considering the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is revealed that there is no difference between Inter-District transfer on self request and administrative basis, therefore, the seniority of the petitioners has to be reckoned from their respective date of appointment on the post of Primary School Head Master and not from the date of joining at transferred district. The respondents are considering the fact that the seniority will not be changed upon going on transferred place and it will remain one and same. If a person has joined in place A and thereafter subsequently, for any reason, he got transferred to place B, then in both the places, his/her dated of joining would be same and one for all the purposes of his/her service. It cannot be held and declare that he/she become junior upon joining new place of posting. Even if any circular to this effect has been passed, it would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. One cannot be declared junior by virtue of his/her transfer to another District. The judgment cited by the intervenors stating that when the government servant is transferred on his own request, then the transferred employee will have to forego his/her seniority till the date of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the juniormost employee in the category in the new cadre or department. This is because a 11 government servant getting transferred to another unit or department for his/her personal consideration, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he/she is transferred, by claiming that his service in the department from which he has been transferred, should be taken into account. 11. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent on the face of record that the gradation list prepared by the authorities are erroneous and the same is required to be rectified while amending the same and while placing the petitioners in their right place on the basis of their initial joining of service. The mere getting transferred on own request would not render the petitioners to be placed under their juniors. 12. In the result, the relief claimed by the petitioners is required to be granted to them and accordingly the writ petitions are allowed while directing the respondent authorities to rectify the impugned gradation list and to prepare a fresh gradation list in accordance with law by placing the petitioners in their proper gradation list. The petitioners are also entitled to get their seniority on the post of Headmaster with effect from 10.12.2010 i.e. the date of joining on the post of Headmaster, Primary School with all consequential benefits.” 8. The factual matrix of the present case stands on identical footing. The petitioner was appointed through due process on 10.07.1998 and his seniority, therefore, cannot be curtailed or postponed 12 merely on account of subsequent transfer. The action of the respondents in counting his seniority from 28.09.2007 is inconsistent with the law laid down by this Court in the earlier decisions referred to above. 9. Considering the case in hand and particularly considering the fact that the present matter is identical to earlier petitions decided by this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for counting the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment dated 10.07.1998 thereafter placed his name accordingly on the proper place of the gradation list and to give him all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE