1 2026:CGHC:8175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1062 of 2024 1 - Kamal Kapoor Banjare S/o Late Shri S.P. Banjare Aged About 54 Years Presently Working As District Education Officer, Mohla – Manpur- Ambagarh - Chowki, Distrct – Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh-Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indrwati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4136 of 2024 1 - Pratistha Shukla D/o Shri N.D. Shukla Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 388, Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, District- Durg ( C.G.). ---Petitioner(s) Versus VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.). 2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District- Education Officer, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1940 of 2024 1 - Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi S/o Shri Hari Prasad Tripathi, Aged About 49 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Chindbahar, Block Darbha, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Sunil Kumar Kashyap, S/o Shri Muralidar Kashyap, Aged About 52 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Girls, Higher Secondary School Bhilai - 3, District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya , New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya , New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya , New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer, District Bastar (C.G.) 6 - The District Education Officer, District Durg (C.G.) 3 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2286 of 2024 1 - Vijay Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Dubey Aged About 55 Years Posted As Lecturer At Scert (State Council Of Education, Research And Training) B T I Ground, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Director State Council Of Education, Research And Training (Scert), Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2028 of 2024 1 - Ramakant Pandey S/o Mukund Prasad Pandey Aged About 58 Years Working As Lecturer, District Institute Of Education And Training (Diet), Baster, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ghanshyam Nag Aged About 58 Years Working As Lecturer, District Institute Of Education And Training (Diet), Baster, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 3 - Narendra Kumar Bisht Aged About 58 Years Working As Lecturer, Govt. Girls, Higher Secondary School, Bakawand, Block Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Principal Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The District Education Officer District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5582 of 2024 1 - Rewaram Deshlahre S/o Late Dashrath Deshlahre Aged About 61 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Bti, Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Mukund Meshram S/o Shri Gendlal Meshram Aged About 61 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Kisan Higher Secondary School Arjuni, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 5 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Principal Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Education Officer District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6269 of 2024 1 - Vinod Kumar Shukla S/o. Shri Lakhan Lal Shukla Aged About 60 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Baheramuda, Block - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9833 of 2025 1 - Nita Mandal W/o Shri S.C. Mandal Aged About 58 Years Working As Lecturer, District Institute Of Education And Training (D I E T), Bastar District Bastar C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - The Under Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 4 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, C.G. 5 - The Director, State Council Of Educational Research And Training (S C E R T), Shanker Nagar Raipur C.G. 6 - The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 7 - The Principal, B D M Higher Secondary School, Saragaon, Block Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Mr. Malay Jain, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government 7 Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/02/2026 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ petition No. 1062 of 2024 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in these matters. 3. By way of the said writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the impugned order whereby the respondents have, allegedly with mala fide intent, arbitrarily divested him of nearly ten years of seniority without affording him any reasonable opportunity of hearing. The said action has been taken at a time when the petitioner had moved an application seeking promotion, and on the basis of such withdrawal of seniority, the respondents have held that he is not entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. The impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and unsustainable in law. It amounts to hostile discrimination and infringes the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8 4. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No. 1062/2024 (Kamal Kapoor Banjare vs. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1 (so far as concerned to the petitioner).” 5. Facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Upper Division Teacher and joined service on 09.09.1989 under the Department of School Education. After acquiring the requisite qualifications and experience, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer; however, by promotion orders dated 18.07.2008 and 27.09.2008, respondent No.2 promoted several juniors, including one Arun Kumar Khare, while erroneously excluding the petitioner, despite his unblemished service record. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted representations seeking promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, whereupon respondent No.2, after due consideration, promoted the petitioner as Lecturer (Hindi & 9 History) by order dated 02.03.2009 and initially fixed his seniority from 27.09.2008. Being dissatisfied with the fixation of seniority, the petitioner again represented to respondent No.2, seeking seniority from 18.07.2008, the date on which his juniors were promoted, and by order dated 14.09.2015, respondent No.2 allowed the claim and fixed the petitioner’s seniority as Lecturer with effect from 18.07.2008; the said seniority order remained unchallenged and the petitioner was never issued any notice in that regard. Subsequently, the gradation lists consistently reflected the petitioner’s seniority from 18.07.2008, and on the basis of the said seniority, respondent No.1 considered his case and promoted him as Principal, Higher Secondary School, by order dated 04.06.2016. The petitioner has since been continuously working as Principal without any complaint or punishment and has completed more than seven years of service on the said post, thereby becoming eligible for further promotion; however, after an unexplained delay of about eight years from the fixation of seniority dated 14.09.2015, respondent No.1, by the impugned order dated 12.01.2024, arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s seniority, hence the present bunch of writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside, as the stigmatic observations contained therein are based purely on presumptions and surmises without any supporting material on record, and even a bare perusal of the impugned 10 order reveals that the respondents themselves have no information regarding any departmental enquiry or adverse remark against the petitioners, yet they have unjustifiably assumed the existence of such adverse material to explain the delayed promotion of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have throughout maintained an unblemished service record with no adverse entries in their ACRs, and had there been any adverse remark, the same would necessarily have been reflected in their service records and communicated to them after granting due opportunity, whereas the passing of such stigmatic remarks has unfairly cast a shadow on their honest and hardworking careers. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for any procedural irregularity committed by the respondent State in not convening a review DPC or in correcting their seniority belatedly, as it was the statutory obligation of the authorities to determine seniority strictly in accordance with law upon consideration of the representations made by the petitioners, and any defect in the order granting seniority is attributable solely to the respondents. It is also contended that even assuming, without admitting, that the correction of seniority was not in accordance with law, the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps to conduct a review DPC expeditiously instead of passing the impugned stigmatic order and thereafter remaining silent while merely altering the date of promotion for the purpose of seniority. In view 11 of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine as the issues raised herein are directly covered by an identical writ petition, being WP(S) No. 4136/2024, filed by Pratistha Shukla, which is presently pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the said petition arises out of the same set of facts and involves identical questions of law. The respondents have already filed their detailed return in the aforesaid petition. Learned State counsel therefore submits that in view of the pendency of the identical matter, the present petition either deserves to be heard analogously with the aforesaid writ petition or be disposed of in terms of the decision to be rendered therein. 8. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present batch of petitions essentially relates to withdrawal/revision of long-settled seniority and its impact on promotion already granted to the petitioners. Admittedly, the seniority of the petitioners had remained in operation for several years, was reflected in gradation lists, and on the basis of such seniority some of the petitioners 12 were also granted promotion. The impugned orders have the effect of unsettling the entire service position of the petitioners after a long lapse of time. 10. Even if the respondents were of the view that the earlier fixation of seniority was not in accordance with the rules, such settled seniority could not have been disturbed in a mechanical manner by passing a paper order without undertaking a proper exercise in accordance with law. Any action having civil consequences, particularly one affecting seniority and promotion, is required to be preceded by a fair procedure, objective consideration of service records, and, wherever necessary, a duly constituted review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The impugned orders do not disclose any such comprehensive exercise and appear to be founded only on a notional/paper reassessment of seniority. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that correction of seniority and consequential refixation of promotion, if at all required, must be undertaken only through a lawful review DPC after examining the relevant ACRs/service records and after granting due opportunity to the affected employees. A mere administrative rejection of seniority, without such exercise, cannot be sustained. 12. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 12.01.2024 in all the connected writ petitions are quashed. The matters are remitted to the competent authority with a direction to reconsider the seniority and promotional claims of the petitioners by convening a review DPC, if so required, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules 13 and procedure. While doing so, the authority shall examine the cases of the petitioners vis-à-vis their juniors and determine whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion on the dates claimed by them. If in the review DPC it is found that the petitioners were eligible and entitled to promotion on the relevant dates, they shall be granted notional promotion and consequential service benefits in accordance with law. 13. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a reasonable period, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. All the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost(s). Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha