Laha Ram Ratrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7553 of 2018 Laha Ram Ratrey S/o Daniram Ratrey Aged About 43 Years Working As Head Master And Posted As Government Middle School Paterapalikala, Block Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, First Floor, Block -3, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. District Education Officer Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ishwar Narayan Khute Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Rawadih, Block Jaijaipur, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16/11/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner though being much senior to the respondent No.4 has not been granted promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi).

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the gradation list the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 1833 and the name of the respondent No.4 appears at serial No. 1933 i.e. the respondent No.4 is junior to the petitioner around 100 position. However, when the promotion order to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was published on 11.09.2018, the name of the petitioner was not reflected, whereas the name of the respondent No.4 found place in the order of promotion.

-23. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has approached the authorities in the department, who on verification of facts had realized of the mistake and had assured the petitioner for rectifying the said mistake, but till date no order has been passed in this regard.

4. The petitioner has also made a representation in this regard vide Annexure P/3 to the respondent No.2, which also is till date pending consideration.

5. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the seniority of the petitioner over and above the respondent No.4, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner as also the claim of the petitioner for promotion, over and above the respondent No.4 is concerned.

6. Let this exercise be done at the earliest, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved