Kaushal Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4995 of 2016 • Kaushal Shrivastava S/o Shri Gorelal Shrivastava, Aged About 45 Years Assistant Shikshak Panchayat, R/o Primary School Thandhhar ( Chhuikhadan), Civil & Revenue District Rajnandgaon, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) • The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Civil & Revenue District Rajnandgaon, (Chhattisgarh) • The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, (Chhattisgarh) • Block Education Officer, Block Chhuikhadan, Civil & Revenue District Rajnandgaon, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate For State / Respondent :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. Advocate General Nos. 1 & 4 on advance copy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 22/09/2016 Heard.

1.

The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved by the seniority granted to the petitioner in the impugned gradation list dated 02.09.2016.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that seniority of the petitioner has been lowered down by recording incorrect date of his initial appointment. According to the petitioner, he was duly selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on 11.07.1998, whereas, in the gradation list he has been placed at Sl. No.45, which is on account of incorrect date of appointment.

3.

It is found that the petitioner has challenged the provisional gradation list. The memo dated 02.09.2016 of respondent No.2 shows that objections have been invited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred representation.

4.

At present, in the matter no final gradation list has been published till date. The petitioner has already preferred representation. At this stage, the petition appears to be premature. Upon publication of final gradation list, if grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, he would be at liberty to take recourse to remedy as may be available to him under the law.

5.

With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra