1 CGHC010284572025 2026:CGHC:29779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7886 of 2025 1 - Vincent Kispotta S/o Late Shri Resim Kispotta Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Swami Atmanand Higher Secondary School, Kunkuri, Dist- Jashpur C.G. 2 - Smt. Veronika Ekka D/o Shri Junas Kerketta Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Kunkuri, Dist- Jashpur C.G. 3 - Chunnu Ram Bhagat S/o Shri Khatia Ram Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Tapkara, Dist- Jashpur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 2 - Director, Department Of Public Instructions, First Floor, C Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3858 of 2025 Digree Lal Patel (D.L. Patel) S/o Shri Tuka Ram Patel Aged About 58 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Padigaon, Block Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G) ---Petitioner SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.15 11:00:27 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Divisional Director (Education) Bilaspur, Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Shri Dipesh Prasad Lecturer (LB), Higher Secondary School Lanjoda, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners (In Both the Writ Petitions) : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in bunch of these writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. This bunch of petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who are working as Teachers/ Lecturer under the School Education Department, challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) by which their names have not been considered for promotion on the post 3 of Principal higher secondary school on the pay scale of RS. 15600-39100 in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they have already submitted representation before the School Education Department raising their grievances of non-consideration of their promotion. It has also been contended that the posts are available and the respondents/ State has already promoted 3000 Lecturers/Headmasters in all the cadres of School Education Department but the petitioners have been discriminated, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to conduct review DPC for promoting them on the post of Principal. 4. Learned State counsel would inform to this Court that they have already considered 109 representations submitted by the Headmasters/Lecturers whose case could not be considered for promotion, sent the proposal to the Public Service Commission to conduct review DPC for promotion on the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School. It has also been informed to this Court that 55 persons who have made representations claiming promotion have not been found fit according to them and 24 representations are still pending. 5. It has also been informed that very shortly Public Service Commission will conduct the review DPC and for that they are persuading the Public Service Commission in this regard. 6. Since no time limit has been informed to this Court to conduct review DPC, in such contingency, the Public Service Commission 4 is directed to conduct the review DPC within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and consider it on its own merit without being influence from any of the observation made by this Court. This Court while issuing such direction is fortified with the legal position that the promotion is not the fundament right of a government servant but right to consideration is right of the government servant. Even the rules framed by the State of Chhattisgarh under Article 309 of the Constitution of India namely Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 which mandates that the government department should conduct DPC every year for promotion in all the cadres. 7. It is made clear that this Court has only referred the facts for adjudication of these petitions, this Court has not commented on merit of the individuals case whether they are fit for promotion or not as it is to be assessed by the Public Service Commission only. 8. The State is also directed to communicate the consideration/order passed by them while deciding the representations submitted by the petitioners to the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) Judge $. Bhilwar