1 CGHC010328632022 2026:CGHC:31975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6864 of 2022 1 - Vidyanand Yadav S/o Maya Ram Yadav Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted And Working As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Kanki, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dayaram Rangari S/o Moti Ram Rangari Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted And Working As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Bhaisma, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ram Narayan Pradhan S/o Tiharu Ram Pradhan Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted And Working As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Kanki, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhote Lal Patel S/o Hriday Narayan Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted And Working As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Kanki, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director School Education Department, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Satyanarayan Shiv Presently Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Dhanendra Singh Rajput Presently Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Rampur, PWD, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - Padum Kumar Sahu Presently Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.28 16:43:46 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 8 For Other Respondents : : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to set aside the impugned gradation list (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioners appropriately above the juniors giving benefit of seniority w.e.f. 02.07.2008 as given to the private respondents. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal Higher Secondary School. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that initially the petitioners were appointed to the post of Lower Division Teacher under the respondent authorities on following dates and they joined their services on different dates as under:- Petitioners Date of Appointment Date of Joining Petitioner No. 1 – Vidyanand Yadav 29-09-1987 29-10-1987 Petitioner No. 2 – Dayaram Rangari 09-03-1984 23-03-1984 Petitioner No. 3 – Ram Narayan Pradhan 03-03-1987 15-04-1987 Petitioner No. 4 – Chhote Lal Patel 06-10-1989 12-10-1989 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the private respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 were appointed subsequently in the year 1987, 1996 and 1998. He would submit that gradation list was published, wherein names of the petitioners were kept above the private respondents and in gradation list of 2011 with effect from 07.10.2008, the private respondents were granted seniority above the petitioners. He would contend that subsequently the private respondents were promoted to the next higher post, whereas the petitioners were considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in the year 2017. He would contend that the private respondents have been considered for promotion to the post of Principals etc. and due to wrong and incorrect gradation list, the petitioners have not been considered for promotion along with the private respondents. He would contend that the petitioners may be permitted to make detailed representation(s) before the respondent No. 2 and in turn, the said authority may be directed to decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Amandeep Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5 would submit that the petitioners have claimed seniority with effect from 02.07.2008 by filing a petition on 12.10.2022. He would contend that the petition filed by the petitioners is hit by principles of unexplained delay and laches. He would further contend that the private respondents have already been promoted to the higher posts and the seniority list cannot be upset after lapse of 18 years. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 5. Mr. K.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 would support the contention made by Mr. Amandeep Singh. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Having considered the limited prayer made by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make detailed representation(s) before the respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide representation(s) so made by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law within a period of 150 days from today. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti