Chattisgarh High Court
Shyam Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 6 Sa/129/2002 ... on 21 February, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1206 of 2019
1. Shyam Kumar Verma S/o Late Kunj Lal Verma Aged About 51 Years
Working As Lecturer (L. B.Chemistry) And Posted At Govt. Matrisadan
Higher Secondary School Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Saroj Yadav W/o Late Madan Mohan Yadav Aged About 50 Years
Working As Lecturer (L.B. English) And Posted At Govt. High School
Barauda, Block Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Keshav Prasad Sahu S/o Late Pahru Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years
Working As Lecturer (L.B. Physics) And Posted At Gurughasi Govt. Higher
Secondary School Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4. Lalit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Udai Singh Sahu Aged About 46 Years
Working As Lecturer (L. B. English) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary
School Chhachhapairy, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Raipur, Atal Nagar, New
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate For State : Shri Arvind Dubey, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21/02/2019
1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that all the petitioners before this Court are working on the post of Lecturer under the respondents and they are claiming promotion for the post of Principal in the School Education Department.
2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that initially the petitioners were denied promotion on account of the fact that they 2 were employees of Panchayat Department. Now the services of the petitioners have been absorbed with the Education Department vide order dated 30/06/2018. It is the further contention of the counsel for the petitioners that similarly placed persons who were initially employees of the Panchayat Department and later on merged with the Education Department have in due course of time been granted promotion on the post of Lecturer and they had also participated in the same selection process in which the present petitioners also have been found eligible for promotion.
3. Given the said factual matrix of the case, this Court does not intend to keep the writ petition pending, rather ends of justice would serve if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and decide the representation which the petitioners have already made subject to the verification of facts and eligibility of the petitioners. It is ordered accordingly. Let appropriate decision be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Rohit