Surendra Prasad Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(S) No. 2402 of 2015 • Surendra Prasad Mishra S/o Late Pandit Ram Lakhan Mishra Aged about 55 years R/o Village Manpur, Post Mahora P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary School Education Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh • The Director Public Instructions, Directorate Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh • The District Education Officer Koriya, District Koriya, Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh • Mr. Ramswaroop Bhargava, Aged about 50 Years, Posted as Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School, Nagar, District Koriya Chhattisgarh • Mr. Bindheshwari Prasad Kushwaha, Aged about 52 years, Posted as Lecturer, Govt. High School, Sardi, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh • Mr. Ishwar Sharan Dubey, Aged About 51 Years Posted as Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School Targawan, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh • Smt. Usha Rai, Aged About 53 Years, Posted as Lecturer, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners Mr. A.K. Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate Order On Board By S.B.:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 06/07/2015 Heard.

2.

The petitioner is working as Upper Division Teacher, he is aggrieved by his supersession in the matter of promotion to the post of

Lecturer (History).

3.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, number of juniors have been promoted and despite representation being filed by the petitioner, his grievance has not been paid heed to. He would submit that the petitioner has not earned any adverse remark, nor any enquiry is pending against him, therefore, non-consideration of his case for promotion is arbitrary.

4.

Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioner may be permitted to make fresh representation and the respondents be directed to decide the same at the earliest, so that the petitioner is aware as to the reason for denial of promotion. 5.

Learned State counsel would submit that if fresh representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. 6.

In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the petitioner submits a fresh representation within a period of one month from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by a speaking order, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a further period of three months. 7.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra)] Shyna