1 CGHC010383972026 2026:CGHC:42693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7217 of 2026 Pawan Lal Kamro S/o Shri Hira Singh Kamro Aged About 45 Years Teacher L B Government Middle School Gudum Block Durgukondal District Uttar Bastar Kanker C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C. G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Lok Shikshan Cum Chairman Directorate Level Rationalization Committee Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar C. G. 4 - District Education Officer District Uttar Bastar Kanker C. G. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.10.01 16:35:31 +0530 2 5 - Block Education Officer Block Durgukondal District Uttar Bastar Kanker C. G. 6 - Block Education Officer Block Koyalibeda District Uttar Bastar Kanker C. G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Yogesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 01.10.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is working as Teacher (L.B.) in the subject of Science, challenging the order of suspension dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P/6), passed by respondent No.3 – Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar, Jagdalpur, under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the senior-most teacher at Government Middle School Gudum, Block Durgukondal, District Uttar Bastar Kanker and was declared surplus in the teacher rationalization exercise, 3 pursuant to which he was posted at Government Middle School Dabba, Block Chhindgarh, District Sukma vide order dated 18.06.2025. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 6750 of 2025, the petitioner submitted representations against the said rationalization, which came to be rejected by the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee on 20.08.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other surplus teachers submitted a representation before the Directorate/State Level Rationalization Committee on 09.10.2025, which is stated to be pending consideration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner suffers from Epilepsy and his wife is also a Government teacher posted in Block Durgukondal and they have two minor daughters. It is submitted that the petitioner, in his reply dated 03.12.2025, had explained his difficulties in joining at the far-flung place of posting in District Sukma. However, without considering the said explanation and while the representation before the Directorate/State Level Rationalization Committee was pending, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 09.02.2026. 4 4. Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioner submits a fresh comprehensive representation before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a time-bound period. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall submit a fresh comprehensive representation raising all his grievances, including his grievance regarding revocation of suspension and the alleged continuation thereof without a reasoned order, before respondent No.3 – Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar, Jagdalpur, within a period of 15 days from today along with a copy of this order and upon receipt of such representation, respondent No.3 – Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar, Jagdalpur shall consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 35 days thereafter. 5 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim and all questions are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) Judge Shoaib