1 CGHC010163092023 2026:CGHC:36689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3332 of 2023 Nawal Kishore Tiwari S/o Late Baij Nath Tiwari Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted As Upper Division Teahcer At Government Middle School Ranibachhali, Block Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. And P.S. Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction 1st Floor Block - 3, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Divisional Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4. District Education Officer District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 5. Smt. Nandini Choubey Upper Division Teacher Posted At Government Middle School Lalpur, Block Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate. For Res No.1 to 4/ State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Government Advocate. For Res No.5 : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 17/08/2026 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the followings reliefs:- "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/qaush the impugned Amended List for the post of Head Master (Middle School) issued by the Office of Joint Director, Education-Division, Bilaspur (P/1) 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Head Master Middle School. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice." 2. Factual background of the case are the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1983. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Master (Primary School) on 22.12.2008 (Annexure-P/2). Vide order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher (UDT) from his earlier post of Head Master (Primary School) and posted at Government Middle School Melnadih, Block Kota. It is pertinent to mention here that the nomenclature of 'Upper Division Teacher' has been changed to 'Teacher' under the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2019"). Subsequently, on 01.04.2023, a Seniority/Gradation List was issued for UDT/Head Master (Primary School) vide Annexure-P/4, wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.437 and the name of private 3 respondent No.5 appears at Serial No.686. However, when the Amended List (Annexure-P/1) was issued, the name of the petitioner did not find a place and he was not enlisted for promotion to the post of Headmaster (Middle School), whereas private respondent No. 5, who is junior to him, has been promoted to the said post. Hence, this petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned-above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Gradation List (Annexure-P/4) issued for the post of Head Master (Primary School)/UDT, although the petitioner's name is shown at Serial No.437 and the name of private respondent No.5, Smt. Nandini Choubey, is shown at Serial No. 686, but the petitioner's name was omitted from the Amended List (Annexure-P/1) without any rhyme or reason. Instead, private respondent No.5, who is junior to the petitioner, was enlisted and granted promotion to the post of Headmaster (Middle School). Counsel further submits that since Upper Division Teacher and Head Master (Primary School) are feeder cadre posts for promotion, the petitioner, being senior to respondent No.5, ought to have been included in Annexure-P/1. However, the Department deprived him of the eligible promotional post and gave priority to respondent No.5, which is completely illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the Amended List (Annexure-P/1) in respect of the petitioner may be quashed, and the petitioner be granted promotion to the post of Headmaster (Middle School) or an equivalent post as per the new nomenclature with consequential benefits. 4. Respondents No.1 to 4/State have filed their reply. Referring to the reply, learned State counsel submits that in the Gradation List (Annexure-P/4), respondent No.5 is shown junior to the petitioner, but the petitioner himself 4 did not join the post of Head Master (Primary School) at the relevant time. On the other hand, respondent No.5 joined the post of Head Master (Primary School) on 30.09.2009, as reflected in Column No.14 of the Gradation List. Whereas, in respect of the petitioner, Column No. 14 is blank, indicating that he did not join the post of Head Master (Primary School). Counsel further submits that although respondent No.5 was promoted vide order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure-P/3) to the post of Upper Division Teacher, since the petitioner did not join the promotional post of Head Master (Primary School), the seniority of respondent No.5 was counted from her date of joining i.e. 30.09.2009. He further submits that at the relevant time, the feeder cadre posts for promotion to Headmaster (Middle School) were Headmaster (Primary School)/Upper Division Teacher, but because the petitioner did not join the promotional post of Headmaster (Primary School), his name was not reflected in the Amended List (Annexure-P/1). Lastly, he submits that the petitioner retired on 31.08.2023, just four months after filing the writ petition, and at the time of retirement, his pay scale had already reached that of Headmaster (Middle School). Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous on such score, and granting notional promotion would yield no benefit to him. In view of these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.5 has not filed a separate reply. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 supports all contentions raised by the learned State counsel and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In compliance with the order dated 28.07.2026, Shri Ashwini Bhardwaj, Joint Director (Respondent No. 3), is present before this Court. His presence is noted. 5 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with petition with utmost circumspection. 8. Annexure-P/4 is the initial Gradation List issued by the Office of Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, on 01.04.2023, which includes the names of various employees. A perusal of the said List shows that the petitioner, Nawal Kishore Tiwari, is shown as senior, with his name appearing at Serial No.437, whereas the name of respondent No.5, Smt. Nandini Choubey, appears at Serial No. 686. 9. Both the petitioner and respondent No.5 were promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher ('Teacher' as per new nomenclature) vide common order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure-P/3). As per Entry No.15 of Schedule 4 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, Teacher1/Head Master (Primary School) constitute the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Headmaster (Middle School). 10. Reading of the aforesaid Rule further makes it clear that an Assistant Teacher who joined the promotional post of Head Master (Primary School) does not automatically gain seniority over an Assistant Teacher promoted to the post of Teacher/UDT. Therefore, even though the petitioner did not join the promotional post of Head Master (Primary School), both the petitioner and private respondent No.5 were promoted to the post of Teacher/UDT vide the same order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure-P/3). Thus, the seniority of the petitioner could not be disturbed, as he was reflected as senior in the initial Gradation List (Annexure-P/4) dated 01.04.2023. 1 'Earlier known as Upper Division Teacher' 6 11. During the course of arguments, when a specific query was posed to the learned State counsel as to whether there is any rule providing that the seniority of a Teacher/UDT in the same Gradation List will be disturbed or altered on account of non-joining of the promotional post of Head Master (Primary School), he fairly submitted that, to the best of his knowledge, the Rules are silent on this aspect. 12. Since the Rules themselves are silent on this point, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned State counsel that because respondent No. 5 joined the post of Head Master (Primary School) first, she should be given priority for promotion based on her date of joining that post, resulting in the petitioner, who is senior to her, losing his seniority in the Gradation List. 13. In view above discussion, this Court reaches the conclusion that, the reason assigned by the Respondents/Authorities for non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Amended List (Annexure-P/1) is completely unsustainable and contrary to the governing Rules, 2019. The petitioner and private respondent No.5 were both promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher2 through the common order dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure-P/3), wherein the petitioner maintained clear seniority over respondent No.5, as reflected at Serial No.437 compared to Serial No. 686 in the Gradation List (Annexure-P/4). Merely because the petitioner did not join an earlier promotional post of Head Master (Primary School) before respondent No.5, cannot serve as a ground to wipe out or downgrade his established seniority in the UDT/Teacher cadre especially when the governing recruitment rules contain no such penal or disqualifying clause. Bypassing a senior employee without 2 Now re-designated as 'Teacher' 7 any fault, misconduct, or negligence on his part, while granting promotion to a junior employee, is against the law and Rules 2019. 14. In the result, the impugned Amended List (Annexure-P/1) is quashed only to the extent it excludes the name of petitioner. The Respondent Authorities are directed to restore the petitioner’s seniority in Amended List (Annexure-P/1) above respondent No.5 in the cadre of Teacher/UDT/Head Master (Primary School) and grant him notional promotion to the post of Headmaster (Middle School) or re-designated post after nomenclature, with effect from the date respondent No.5 was promoted. 15. At the same time, considering that the petitioner did not actually discharge duties on the promotional post during the relevant period, grant of actual monetary arrears for the intervening period would not be justified. Therefore, the petitioner shall not be entitled to actual arrears of salary for the period during which he did not work on the promotional post, and the benefits shall remain confined to notional fixation and recalculation of retiral dues, if any. Hence, the consequential retiral benefits and monetary differentials, if any, shall be re-computed and paid to him in accordance with applicable rules/law. 16. The Respondents/Authorities shall carry out aforesaid exercise within a period of 3 months from date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 18. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay