1 CGHC010134182022 2026:CGHC:30392 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.3094 of 2022 Chitralekha Sahu D/o Shri Darbari Lal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Hasda, Post Arkar., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Medical Education Directorate, Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Anjum Novel Posted As Demonstrator In Government Nursing College, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Florida Ram Posted As Demonstrator In Government Nursing College, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.20 15:14:18 +0530 2 5 - Anju Sinha Posted As Demonstrator In Government Nursing College, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Rekha Sahu Posted As Demonstrator In Government Nursing College, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - Hemlata Yadav Posted As Demonstrator In Government Nursing College, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Yamneshwari Sahu Posted As Demonstrator In Government Nursing College, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner :Ms. Shalini Kashyap appears on behalf of Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 & 2/State :Mr. Anil S Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No.3 to 7 :Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate. For Respondent No.8 :None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. The Petitioner has filed this Petition for the following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of demonstrator with effect from 01.10.2021 and grant her seniority in accordance with the Rules. 10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Staff Nurse vide order dated 3 07.04.2008 and her name appears at Serial No.617 in the consolidated merit list. She contends that the Petitioner joined services on 15.04.2008 and she has completed B.Sc. Nursing. She submits that in the order of posting, the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.24 whereas the names of the private Respondents No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 appear at Serial Nos.17, 18, 84, 87, 126 & 170 respectively. She further submits that though the name of the Petitioner is above the private Respondents in the order of posting, yet in the seniority list as on 01.04.2020, she has been placed below the private Respondents. It is submitted that the Petitioner has made various representations before the Respondent-authorities for correction of her position in the seniority list, but till date, no decision has been taken. 3. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the State/Respondents contends that Annexure P-1 dated 07.04.2008 is the order of posting, whereas in the order of appointment, the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.617 and the private Respondents were placed above her in the order of merit. He submits that according to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’), the Petitioner has rightly been placed below the private Respondents. It is contended that the Petitioner is claiming seniority on the basis of the order of posting, which cannot be made the basis for 4 determination of seniority and therefore, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused all the documents annexed herewith carefully. 5. In the order of appointment, the Petitioner was placed below the private Respondents, whereas in the order of posting dated 07.04.2008, her name appears at Serial No.24. It is a settled principle of law that the order of appointment would be the relevant document to determine the seniority of a Government servant and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner has wrongly placed reliance on the order of posting issued by the Respondent- authorities dated 07.04.2008 claiming seniority above the private Respondents. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1961 deals with seniority and Rule 12(1), which is relevant for the disposal of this case, reads as under:- "The seniority of persons directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective of the date of joining. Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection." 6. A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the seniority of a Government servant would be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which the 5 candidates have been recommended for appointment. In the present case, in the order of appointment dated 07.04.2008, the Petitioner has been placed below the private Respondents, therefore, in the seniority list, she has rightly been placed below the private Respondents. 7. In view of the above, the Petition filed by the Petitioner appears to be misconceived, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Priya