Amrit Lal Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3819 of 2018 Amrit Lal Patel S/o Shri Joidha Prasad Patel, Aged About 51 Years, Presently Posted As Lecturer (Maths) At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, R/o Ward No. 2, Rawan Bhatapara, Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. District Education Officer, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

4. Rishi Kumar Patel, Posted As Lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondary School Rajpalpur, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

5. Chaman Lal Chandrakar, Posted As Lecturer At Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

6. Ghana Ram Sinha, Posted As Lecturer At Govt. Higher Secondary School Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

7. Hemendra Acharya, Posted As Lecturer At Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/05/2018 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, though the petitioner is senior on the post of Lecturer, but the respondents No. 4 to 7 have been placed over and above the petitioner in the gradation list and

that the petitioner while finalization of the gradation list was not taken into confidence or given an opportunity while disturbing the seniority. 2.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner has made a representation in this regard, but the same is pending consideration before the respondent No.2 since long.

3.

In the given facts, this Court is not inclined to keep the Writ Petition pending rather ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner objectively in accordance with the rules governing the field. 4.

Let an appropriate decision be taken in this regard by the respondent No.2 within a period of 90 days from today.

5.

The respondent No.2 is also directed to ensure that in between any DPC which is likely to be convened the outcome of which would be subject to the outcome of the decision that would be taken on the representation of the petitioner.

6.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE