1 2026:CGHC:7858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7163 of 2024 1. Anil Kumar Behra S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Behra Aged About 46 Years Posted As Teacher (Panchayat), Middle School, Injako, Block - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh 4. The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. The Director Directorate Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh 7. The District Education Officer Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.02.13 19:34:13 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 to 7: Mr. Vivek Verma, For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents no.1 & 2 to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer with retrospective effect in light of the orders dated 14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024 issued by the respondents no.1 & 2 (Annexure P/1 & P/2 respectively), with stipulated time, in accordance with law, with all consequential benefits. 10.2.That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petitioner may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II vide order dated 30.6.2009. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed as Cluster Coordinator vide order dated 19.9.2011 issued by the Block Education Officer Pathalgaon, District Jashpur. Even after appointment of petitioner as Cluster Coordinator, according to guidelines issued in this regard by the Managing Director of the State Project Office, Raipur, petitioner was teaching students, three periods every day at his place of 3 posting. When Shiksha Karmi Grade II were to be promoted as Shiksha Karmi Grade I, petitioner was not considered for promotion only on the ground that he is not possessing seven years teaching experience because he was appointed as Cluster Coordinator on 19.11.2009. He contended that in this writ petition, petitioner has enclosed documents issued by the Headmaster concerned mentioning that petitioner had taught in school for the academic year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and thereby he fulfills criteria of teaching experience of seven years. When petitioner was not promoted along with others, he submitted an appeal before the Commissioner under the Chhattisgarh Shikshak Panchayat (Recuritment and Service Conditions) Rules 2012, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.4.2019 against which writ petition was filed. He submits that inadvertently the certificates issued by the Head Master of teaching work of petitioner were not submitted. In the year 2018, petitioner’s services were absorbed by the School Education Department and even thereafter, petitioner has acquired 07 years teaching experience and thus petitioner is having more than 07 years of teaching experience. Therefore, respondents be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Lecturer. 4 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that pursuant to order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.4125/2019, claim of petitioner was considered. Though petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer, he was much below in the gradation list, therefore, he could not be promoted. According to pleadings made in Para-8 of reply, name of petitioner is at Sr. No.6238 in the gradation list, whereas promotion is given to the teacher of English subject who is at Sr. No.5117 and teacher of Political Science at Sr. No.5645 of gradation list. Candidature of petitioner for promotion will be considered at appropriate time as per his seniority. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for State. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 6. So far as first submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he is entitled for promotion before his absorption when his juniors in gradation list of Shiksha Karmi II maintained by the concerned Department were promoted, is concerned, petitioner has challenged non-grant of promotion before the Commissioner by filing an appeal, which was dismissed. Writ 5 petition challenging the order of Commissioner also came to be dismissed observing thus:- “7. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the petitioner was assigned the post of Cluster Co- ordinator on 19.09.2011 and he remained posted as such till the absorption of his services in the year 2018 and there is no document to demonstrate that he was teaching while holding the said post, thus, the Commissioner, Division Sarguja has not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed 7. From perusal of aforementioned extract of order dated 24.11.2023 passed in WPS No.4125/2019, it would reveal that the Court took note that petitioner was not having teaching experience. Accordingly writ petition was dismissed upholding the order of the Commissioner. When once the Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed claim of petitioner challenging the order of Commissioner on the ground that petitioner was not possessing relevant documents to show that petitioner was also engaged in teaching work, the same cannot be considered again in this subsequent petition. If petitioner still feels that he is entitled for promotion based on documents issued in his favour of by the Headmaster from the date his juniors were promoted, then the petitioner is having other remedy under the law and such a claim cannot be permitted to raise in this writ petition. 6 Therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner to that extent is rejected. 8. So far as second submission of learned counsel for petitioner that even after passing of the order in earlier writ petition, petitioner was not promoted is concerned, petitioner has not submitted any rejoinder to the pleadings made in reply filed on behalf of respondent State mentioning that petitioner is below in seniority list i.e. at Sr. No.6238, therefore, grant of promotion to the teachers at Sr. No.5645 and 8771 cannot be said to be erroneous. Petitioner has also not challenged the gradation list fixing his seniority at Sr. No.6238. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the decision of respondents that petitioner is not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion in view of his seniority in the gradation list, second submission of learned counsel for petitioner is also not have any force and accordingly, it is repelled. 9. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-