High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2044/2019disposed off

Ramesh Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-12-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2044 of 2019

1. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Bala Ram Sahu, Lecturer, Govt. Higher School, Surdung (Jamul), Block Dhamdha, District Durg C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Public Instruction, State Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. District Education Officer, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. Shri Ajay Kumar Kaushik, Lecturer, Govt Girl's Higher Secondary School, Chakarbhatha, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 19/12/2019

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer for the reason that the cut off date to get a post graduation degree was 30.09.2009. He further submits that the petitioner result though was declared on 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-4) by the University and he passed out the post graduation in M.SC. (Maths), however, the mark-sheet was subsequently given. Therefore, the issuance

of mark-sheet will not govern the date of passing as it will relate back to the declaration of the result irrespective of the fact that the mark-sheet were subsequently issued. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner though subsequently promoted may be considered from back date i.e. 28.01.2011. Therefore, he has made a representation to Director which may be decided.

3. Perused the documents.

4. Perusal of records would show that the petitioner result was declared on 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-4), however, the mark-sheet was subsequently given. Taking into such fact the prayer is made that the representation filed by the petitioner may be decided, the prayer appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation to Respondent No. 2 within a period of 4 weeks from today. If such representation is filed along with all the relevant documents the same shall be decided by Respondent No.2 within a outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti