1 CGHC010115192021 2026:CGHC:28167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2717 of 2021 1 - Smt. Prabha Sharma W/o Shri Bijendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Service, Lecturer (Hindi), Presently Working As In-Charge Principal, Government Higher Secondary School- Khadgaon, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Education Officer, Education District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Shri A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 08.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the 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 High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the letter and enclosure dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure P-7) with respect to cut-off date "28.07.2008", in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Principal of Higher Secondary /High School, in the light of letter dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P-5). Respondent authorities further be directed to consider the petitioner's case for promotion irrespective of subsequent letter dated 06.04.2021 / enclosure, in which the seniority cut- off dated mentioned as "28.07.2008", which is not applicable in case of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 8.11.1988 in a school under the Tribal Welfare Department. He 3 would submit that during the course of his service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher and subsequently to the post of Lecturer on 3.2.2017. He would contend that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal in the year 2020 but the respondent authorities failed to consider the name of the petitioner for the said promotion. He would contend that at present the petitioner got retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the petitioner made a representation before respondents No.1 & 2 claiming therein the monetary benefits attached to the promotional post. He would contend that a direction may be issued to respondents No. 1 & 2 to decide the representation so made in accordance with the law. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that since the petitioner has already retired from service, he has no right to claim promotion with retrospective effect or the monetary benefits attached to that post. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4 5) In the matter of Government of West Bengal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, in paragraphs 15 & 19, as under: “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement? 19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of 5 Punjab, (1999) 7 scc 209, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 6 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right 7 under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ 6) Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty to make a representation before respondents No.1 & 2 claiming therein the monetary benefits attached to the promotional post, this petition at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty to make such a representation and in turn, the said authorities are directed to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 7) Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi