Awadhram Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2629 of 2015

1. Awadhram Dewangan S/o Shri Hemsai Dewangan Aged About 46 years Working As Upper Divison Teacher Govt. Middle School Ravaan, Block Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Savitri Verma W/o Shri Umesh Kumar Verma Aged About 42 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Baloda Bazar Block Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

3. Smt. Ahuti Verma W/o Shri Devendra Kumar Verma Aged About 43 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Civil Line Baloda Bazar Block Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

4. Jitanshu Prasanna Verma S/o Bharat Lal Verma Aged About 37 Years Working As Upper Divison Teacher Govt. Girls Middle School Baloda Bazar Block Baloda Bazar Dsitrict Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

5. Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Bhimendra Kumar Verma Aged About 43 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Balak Latwa, Block Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

6. Gopal Singh Verma S/o Manaram Verma Aged About 45 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Arjuni, Block Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara 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. The District Education Officer Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara 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 (Sanskrit).

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