1 / 4 2026:CGHC:4061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 741 of 2026 Smt. Shweta Manikpuri W/o Vijay Manikpuri Aged About 49 Years Occupation- Teacher L.B., Posted At- Government Middle School, Gogaon, Block- Dharsiva, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Public Instruction First Floor, C Block Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Rajni Choudhary 50 Occupation- Teacher Lb Government Middle School Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 23/01/2026 1. Heard. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.01.24 16:53:36 +0530 2 / 4 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned promotion order dated 26/12/2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2,and be considered for promotion treating them Biology Teachers as has been treated to Respondent 4. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to correct the impugned gradation list issued on 06/11/2024 or prepare and finalize gradation list afresh correcting the column 10 by correcting Subject mentioned as SCIE to BIO, after granting opportunity of objection/hearing petitioner. to the 10.3 That, theRespondent No. 1& 2 be directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Biology) and grant them promotion in the same DPC convened for the promotion order dated 26/12/2025, or review DPC be convened and petitioner be granted promotion. 10.4 That, the record of the DPC convened in relation tot he promotion order dated 26.12.2025 be called. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to grant such order relief(s), as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play. ” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working on the post of Teacher (LB) and is posted at Govt. Middle School, Gogaon, Block- Dharsiva, District- Raipur. Petitioner is having 3 / 4 qualification of MSC, Zoology as also the degree of B.Ed. In the gradation list name of petitioner has been show on serial no. 5917. Respondent authorities have initiated the proceedings for promotion of the teacher to the post of Lecturer (Biology), but in gradation list in front of name of petitioner due to some typographical error it is mentioned as Science instead of Biology and therefore, it appears that name of petitioner is not considered for the post of lecturer (Biology) and junior to petitioner who is placed at serial no. 5920 has been promoted. After getting knowledge of exclusion of the petitioner in process of promotion on the very ground that in front of his name biology is not mentioned but for science, petitioner has submitted representation before respondent no. 2 on 01.01.2026 i.e. immediately thereafter, which is pending consideration. The representation is also forwarded to respondent no. 3, however, none of the authorities have considered and taken decision on her representation. 4. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioner has already submitted an application for redressal of her grievance and if the representation of petitioner is still under consideration, it will be considered in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. Grievance of petitioner is that though petitioner possesses qualification for her consideration on the post of Lecturer (Biology), but due to some typographical error of employee of respondent department in front of the name of petitioner in the gradation list it is mentioned as science not Biology. It is also the contention of petitioner that there is no such classification in the rules applicable to the petitioner. 4 / 4 7. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances fo the case, primarily considering the facts that according to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner there appears to be some mistake on the part of employee of respondent department, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage, directing respondent no. 2 and 3 to take decision on the claim of petitioner in particular the representation submitted by her vide Annexure P-2 dated 01.01.2026 and 02.01.2026, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. If the respondent authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was eligible for consideration of name for promotion then appropriate steps be taken and the orders be passed in this regard also. It is ordered accordingly. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza