Chhatra Pal Singh Kanwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3388 of 2021

1. Chhatra Pal Singh Kanwar S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Singh Kanwar Aged About 61 Years Principal ITI Chorbhatthi, P.O- Gopalpur, (Jamnipali), Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

2. Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 61 Years ITI Patan, Thana And Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Ram Gopal Tiwari S/o Shri Pratap Chandra Tiwari Aged About 56 Years Principal Government ITI Janjgir- Champa, Grade Ii, Chhattisgarh.

4. Kanhiya Lal Patel S/o Late Shri Priyadarshan Patel Aged About 61 Years Principal ITI, Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

5. Mohan Lal Banjare S/o Shri Pardesi Ram Banjare Aged About 58 Years Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

6. Bhagat Singh S/o Salik Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Aazad Chauk, Behind Vishwas Petrol Pump, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

7. D.P. Dahire S/o Bisan Das Dahire Aged About 52 Years R/o Om Audio Video Zone- 2, Sector- 2, Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

8. Gorakh Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramawatar Aged About 55 Years R/o 590/2, Road No.8, Aashish Nagar, Risali, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

9. P.K. Naidu S/o Late L.N. Naidu Aged About 58 Years Principal, Govt. I.T.I Bambhanindih, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Shantam Awasthy, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20.07.2021 .

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a limited prayer that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to

-2consider and decide the representation which the petitioners have preferred for grant of seniority from the date the immediate juniors have been promoted from the post of Training Superintendent to the post of Principal Class-II.

2. According to the petitioners, initially the petitioners were denied promotion when the DPC was convened on 30.05.2014, however, subsequently the department themselves have ordered for holding a review DPC and accordingly a review DPC was convened and thereafter the petitioners have been provided promotion with effect from 2018.

3. The limited grievance that the petitioners have is that when the promotion that the petitioners have received is on account of a review DPC pertaining to a DPC that was convened on 30.05.2014, the petitioners should be treated at par with all those candidates who were considered in the DPC in the year 2014 and the petitioners should have provided a corresponding seniority in the gradation list so far as their seniority on the promotional post is considered.

4. The petitioners submits that they have already submitted a detailed representation to the authorities concerned. They may be permitted to make a fresh representation supported with all relevant documents and the authorities may consider and decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law.

5. The limited grievance that the petitioners have is not opposed by the respondents.

6. Given the said facts, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners so far as grant of seniority from the date their immediate juniors

-3have been promoted. Let a decision in this regard be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder