1 / 4 CGHC010271342026 2026:CGHC:31125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5501 of 2026 Kamlesh Kumar Ruparelia (In Person) S/o Lt. Shri Ramji Bhai Aged About 61 Years Vartman Padh Uchh Varg Shikshak, Shaskiya Anudan Prapat Vidhyalaya Shri Gujrati Uchhtar Madhyamik Shala, Devendra Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv, School Shiksha Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur (Atal Nagar), District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sanchalak, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur (Atal Nagar), District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Jila Shiksha Adhikari District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shri Gujrati Shikshan Sangh Through Adhyaksh, Devendra Nagar, Sector 4, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Vandana Sanghvi Vartman Padh Vyakhyata Shri Gujrati Uchtar Madhyamik Shala, Devendra Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Petitioner in person : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Ruparelia For Respondents/ State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/07/2026 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.23 11:21:45 +0530 2 / 4 1. Petitioner in person submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order bearing Memo No./Anudan/Shi.Pado./ 2018/458 dated 19.01.2018 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby respondent No. 5 has been promoted from the post of Lower Division Teacher (Assistant Teacher) to the post of Upper Division Teacher (Zoology). It is contended that, in fact, the post in question is that of Lecturer (Zoology), and therefore, the promotion granted to respondent No. 5 under the impugned order is wholly illegal. 2. It is further submitted that the impugned promotion has been granted in complete violation of the applicable statutory rules and the prescribed procedure governing promotions. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents suffers from arbitrariness and is indicative of administrative favouritism, thereby offending the principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel, opposing the writ petition, submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches, as the impugned order of promotion was passed on 19.01.2018, whereas the present writ petition has been instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court after several years, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be rejected on the ground 3 / 4 of delay alone. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not sought any consequential or substantive relief in his own favour and has merely questioned the promotion granted to respondent No. 5. The petitioner has neither asserted any enforceable legal right nor demonstrated as to how the impugned order has prejudicially affected his service rights. In the absence of any infringement of a legal or fundamental right of the petitioner, the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The impugned order of promotion was passed on 19.01.2018, whereas the present writ petition has been instituted after an inordinate lapse of time without furnishing any plausible or satisfactory explanation for the delay. It is well settled that a person who approaches the writ Court after an unexplained and unreasonable delay is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. That apart, the petitioner has not sought any consequential relief in his own favour nor has he demonstrated infringement of any enforceable legal or service right. The petition merely seeks to challenge the promotion granted to respondent No. 5 without establishing as to how the petitioner is personally aggrieved by 4 / 4 the impugned action. In the absence of any violation of the petitioner's legal right, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed, being barred by delay and laches as well as for want of maintainability. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti