1 2026:CGHC:14012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5161 of 2022  Narayanlal Soni S/o Butturam Soni, Aged About 46 Years Working As Teacher (Panchayat) At Govt. Middle School, Karga Block Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, H.Q,- Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The District Education Officer, Education District, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Anguria, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the affairs of the petitioner and to quash the impugned order, dt. 09/05/2022 [Annexure -P/1]. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for considering the name of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.25 18:54:49 +0530 2 the petitioner for the promotion on the post of Lecturer [Panchayat] w.e.f. 16/09/2014 with all consequential benefits of the services, etc. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and proper.” 2. Ms. Anguria would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade – III vide order dated 16.09.1998. She would contend that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 06.06.2002 and he was promoted to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade – II vide order dated 27.02.2006. She would contend that the petitioner was eligible to be promoted to the post of Lecturer after completion of 7 years of service according to Shikshak (Panchayat) Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharten) Niyam, 2012, but despite repeated representations no action was taken. She would contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Anguria. Mr. Ojha would submit that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities claiming retrospective promotion to the post of Lecturer in the year 2022, whereas, rules were framed in the year 2012 and petitioner was eligible for promotion to the said post in the year 2014. He would contend that Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhamtari considered grievance of the petitioner and rejected it on the ground of delay. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Advocate would submit that the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhamtari has passed order strictly in accordance with the law, and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. She has placed 3 reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. Vs. K. Thangappan and Anr. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 332. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade – II in the year 2006 and he became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in the year 2014, but he made representations before the respondent authorities in the year 2022. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhamtari rejected the representation vide order dated 09.05.2022, thereafter this petition was filed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Thangappan (supra) has held that representations were made after two decades and there was considerable delay. It is also held that mere making of representations cannot justify a belated approach. It is also held that if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Relevant para 5, 6 and 9 are reproduced herein-below :- “5. The factual position as noted above clearly shows that for nearly 2 decades the respondent No.1- workman had remained silent. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants even in the representations made in 1997 and 1998 there was no reference to the representations claimed to have been made in 1982 and/or 1989. Even if that would have been made, there was considerable delay even in 4 making the representations. There is no dispute that mere making of representations cannot justify a belated approach. 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 SC 769). Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (AIR 1987 SC 251), that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the junior to the petitioner, who was promoted prior in time has not been impleaded as party respondent; 5 petitioner approached the respondent authorities after 8 years without explaining sufficient cause and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Thangappan (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference, accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant