Dukhitram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2635 of 2015

1. Dukhitram Sahu S/o Shri Jagnoo Prasad Sahu Aged About 47 years Upper Division Teacher, Presently Working As Cluster Coordinator, Baloda Bazar, Block Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Diluram Sahu S/o Shri Domar Singh Sahu Aged About 42 Years W/o Shri Umesh Kumar Verma, Working As Upper Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Baloda Bazar, Block Baloda Bazar, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board By 24/07/2015 1.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2.

The petitioners are working as Upper Division Teacher, they are aggrieved by their supersession in the matter of promotion to the post of Lecturer (English).

3.

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

4.

Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioners may be permitted to make fresh representation and the respondents be directed to decide the same at the earliest, so that the petitioners are 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 petitioners submit 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 Nirala