Phool Singh Kanwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3131 of 2018 Phool Singh Kanwar S/o Late Shri Umend Singh Kanwar, Aged About 48 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School Dalihanpara, Block And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Upper Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Commissioner Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

6. District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

7. Manohar Singh Kanwar, Aged About 50 Years, Lecturer (English), At Govt. High School Padaniya, Block Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. B. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 18/04/2018 1.

Only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have ignored the candidature of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Headmaster to the

post of Lecturer inspite of the fact that the petitioner has got all the requisite eligibility criteria and experiences.

2.

He submits that the respondent No.7 who is identically placed has been granted this benefit ahead of the petitioner and therefore his claim may also be considered.

3.

However perusal of the record would show that the petitioner till date has not represented before the respondents to ventilate his grievances. 4.

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose off the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation in this regard to the concerned respondents, who in turn shall consider the case of the petitioner in comparison with the respondent No.7 and shall pass a suitable order at the earliest.

5.

The writ petition thus stands disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit