1 / 4 2026:CGHC:5961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1263 of 2026 Rashmi Patel W/o Rajendra Kumar Patel Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Teacher (L.B) E Cadre Government Middle School Timarlaga, Block- Sarangarh District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Vikas Bhawan, North Block- Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Director Panchayat Directorate, Vikas Bhawan North Block- Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh, 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Sarangarh-Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.06 10:32:37 +0530 2 / 4 6 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Block III First Floor, Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 03/02/2026. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), issued by the Respondent No. 3 Director, Panchayat Directorate and further order reinstatement of promotion order passed in favour of the petitioner dated 21.04.2025. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 Director, Panchayat Directorate & Respondent No. 1 Secretary, School Education Department to grant promotion and posting to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 12.04.2017. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass such further orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner while working on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and posted in the office of Jila Panchayat, Raigarh was superseded by her juniors as they were promoted on the post of Lecturer but petitioner could not be. Petitioner thereafter filed writ petition before this Court which was disposed of 3 / 4 permitting the petitioner to submit representation to be considered by the authority in accordance with law. Accordingly, petitioner submitted representation, however, no decision was taken on representation and therefore petitioner was forced to file contempt petition bearing Contempt Case No.1060 of 2018 and Contempt Case No.773 of 2018 and only thereafter the Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Raipur has passed order promoting petitioner on the post of Lecturer from the date her juniors were promoted i.e. 12.04.2017. He contended that respondent No.3 has passed the order keeping in abeyance the order of promotion of petitioner only on the ground that at the time of passing of an order of promotion by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raigarh school in which petitioner is posted and working fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Jila Panchayat Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. He contended that as the claim of petitioner is of the year 2017 and competent authority at that time was Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Raigarh and therefore Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh has passed the order which could not be said to be erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that order of promotion issued in favour of petitioner has not been cancelled but is only kept in abeyance and from the order Annexure P-1 it is apparent that respondent No.3 has called for entire records with respect to proceeding initiated for promotion in favour of petitioner and decision is still to be taken by respondent No.3. 4. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that respondent No.3 has not cancelled order of promotion of petitioner till date but grievance of petitioner is that respondent No.3 has not 4 / 4 concluded proceedings initiated by him as is reflecting from Annexure P-1 wherein respondent No.3 has called for entire records within specified time of seven days for perusal. He submits that order is dated 23.06.2025 and even after lapse of seven months, no decision has been taken. 5. In the aforementioned facts of case, in particular when respondent No.3 is seized of the matter and by order Annexure P-1 he has only passed order of keeping order of promotion in abeyance and final decision is still to be taken and therefore instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from respondent I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing respondent No.3 to conclude the proceeding which he has initiated by Annexure P-1 at the earliest in accordance with law within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen