1 2026:CGHC:9140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6679 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jagriti Gupta (Vastrakar) W/o Rajesh Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o Mig (Dlx) 238, Phase - 2 Kabeer Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ashish Kumar Tikriha S/o Dilip Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o 767, Ward No. 12, Police Lines Saja Block Post And Tehsil Saja District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sakin Joni S/o K.P. Joni Aged About 48 Years R/o H/ No. 230, Kailash Nagar Ward No. 20, Birgaon Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Schedule Tribal And Schedule Caste Welfare Department Block D, Ground Floor Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Commissioner Schedule Tribal And Schedule Caste Welfare Department Division Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Assistant Commissioner Schedule Tribal Welfare Department Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - The Collector (Tribal Development ) Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) -- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Mr. Vibhore Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Govt. Advocate For Intervener : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 20/02/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the para 3 (3), 4 (3) and para 5 (3) of impugned order/policy dated 10/06/2025 (Annexure-P/1) as illegal and void ab initio and further be pleased to set aside it. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the proposal list with preferred employees and vacant hostel list(Annexure P/2) issued by Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Raipur in pursuance to counselling process. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the seniority list (Annexure P/3)issued by Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Raipur in pursuance to counselling process. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass repatriation orders for the teacher working on deputation to their parent department and to terminate the charge of hostel Superintendent Category C given to teachers. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct counseling proceedings for Hostel Superintendent (C) afresh for total 1732 posts as sanctioned vide order dated 04/09/2024 (Annexure P/7) including 755 posts on which deputationists are working. 10.7 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to consider and decide petitioners' objections/representations respectively 3 (Annexure P/9) before conclusion of counselling process. 10.8 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for State/respondents would submit that challenge to the policy made by other petitioners in WPS No. 5958 of 2025 has been rejected and writ petition was dismissed by detailed order, therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is to be also dismissed in similar line. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the grounds raised in this petition is different from the grounds as raised in the WPS No.5958 of 2025. In that case, petitioners therein have raised ground that there should be only State level counselling i.e. one counselling in the entire State and not different level i.e. Divisional Level and State Level. Petitioners in this case are not aggrieved with three tire counselling procedure as formulated but petitioners’ grievance is that some of the Hostel Superintendent are posted on deputation from Education Department, however, those posts and hostels are not shown in counselling proceedings and opened for their options of the promoted Hostel Superintendent Grade-C. Action on the part of the respondent authorities is discriminatory, therefore, it is to be struck down. 4. Learned State counsel submits that as of now counselling and posting of entire promoted Grade-C Hostel Superintendent has been 4 completed and if any order is passed then entire posting of Hostel Superintendent Grade-C will be affected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the case at hand, the petitioners do not claim any substantive right flowing from the service rules. Petitioners are only claiming that they are deprived of appropriate place of posting pursuant to the policy formulated by the State Government. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that 977 promoted Hostel Superintendent Grace-C have already posted in the entire State, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this writ petition on that ground only. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Any interference will cause great difficulty to the Hostel Superintendent posted and joined on their posts. However, petitioners if are aggrieved with regard to individual posting in any manner, they will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate authority. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram