^^^? IN THE mCH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0il^L OF2006<8EM«iig SS'W .—<j& ^ PETITIONER :^y^ ^^yy \ .' ^'.••" '..•-"'e-e/ ^y ^y ^ R.S.Chandrakar, S/o Shri S..D.Chandrakar , Age about 53' years, Occupation-Service, workmg as Incharge Principal, Higher Secondary School Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G-). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: o^ ^-- (^ &V1. V..-' COJ?^^ ^A^^ ?>.° (1) State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary School Education department, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) (2) The Director, Public Instmctions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG). (3) TheUpperDireetor,Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (4) District Education OfiBcer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). (5) The Secretary, Bag Bahara Shiksha Samiti Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (CG). (6) Shri. M.K.Chandrakar S/o Shri M.S.Chandrakar, aged about 52 years, Public Higher Secondary School Bagbahara District Mahasamund (CG). WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF mniA Hi; t!i ,«• m. mi iii w. S{II HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. h/lr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 1071 qf 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS R.S. Chandrakar State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Awadh Tripathi counsel forthe petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai PL for the respondents 1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Shri Anupam Dubey counsel for respondentNo.6. ; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRDER (09.09.2010) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that on 16.9.1995 hri was promoted along with respondent No.6 as Lecturer from the post pf Upper Division Teacher and was placed above respondent ,No.,6j Hdwever, ,all of a sudden order dated 13.10.2005 (Annexure P-8) hai been issued by respondent No.3 directing that respondent No.6 b^ placed above the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said ordei) could not have been passed 10 years after issuance. of the promotion order especially when in compliance of the promotion order dated 15.9.1995 (Annexure R-3) the petitioner was also given the post of Incharge Principal. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after promoting him and respondent No.6 as Lecturer, a gradation list (Annexure P-1) was issuecf sometime in the month of July, 1997 in which the petitioner was shownaf S.No.7 whereas the respondent No.6 was shown at S.No. 8 and thi^ position in the gradation list has never been objected to by respondeni No.6. He submits that after getting promotion on the post of Lecturer both, the petitioner and respondent No.6 had filled the declaration forrr|! (Annexures P-2 and P-3) accepting their position in the gradation lists meaning thereby, the petitioner would be at S.No. 7 whereas responden^ ^ifcigS 8ia sssse- ^&^. 'i^SSS??a?^B ^3^@ aa ki»KIK -2.' m HSi Va'*, lx:^ ^ »a; S 9 Nq.6 would be at S.NO. S.According fo^the counsel for'the petiti6ner,^i||||,| the petitioner was placed above respondentNo.6, his candidature was considered for holding the post of Incharge principal and pursuant tc various instructions of the department he was given the said post ati< therefore, after an inordinate delay of 10 years a gradation list of lectuFe^ cahnot be modified and under no circumstances the respondent No.6 cap be placed above the petitioner. He suhmits th&t the petitioner has alscj' ehallenged the letter dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure P-9) by which Distric^; Education Officer had asked the Director, Public Instruction, Raipur^tcj send the original copy of the order dated 13.10.2005 (Annexure P-8» According to him, as lecturer the petitioner is senior to respondent N6.6 and therefore the order impugned could not have been issued foi' correcting the gradation list. 3. Replying to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, it ha^; been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in servicq ; respondent No.6 is senior to the petitioner and even in the promotio^' order tie was placed above the petitioner, but inadvertently in th^:.,; document of Annexure P-1 the petitioner has been shown above|;i,'; respondent No.6 andwhen themistake came to the notice of respondent|^| No.6 in the year 1998, he made a representation which ultimately wa^ |! allowed by the-competent authority after due verification of the facts ancl j :...•.I. thusa decision was taken to correct the gradation list of lecturer and pu'rsuanttothat, orderdated 13.10.2005 has been passed. ^; l \,'.-:. ''•• 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available orj record. 1! 5. From perusal of document of Annexure R-2 filed by the Stat^jgi Government, a comparative chart giving details of the service ofttii^|^;| petitioner and the respondentNo.6 it is apparent that respondent No.6;!^ was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17.7.1974 whereas the petitionei;; was appointed on the said post on 5.8.1987. Subsequently, respondenf-il No.6 was promoted as Upper Division Teacher on 3.7.1978 whereas th^l petitioner was promoted onthe said post on 20.12.1979 and then both of them were promoted as Lecturer on 15.9.1995. Further, from the^ ;l ,?. SSE BS a£ ? s. sis i ra n< |" i:a ^^l^ti^sl^ji^ll^ SlBSHi ''SSSEU ;*T M; 'fse^^p^ ftX: s:s:v . Hll£;l:; i'W~ »' -3 '"Ssia' nt Annexure R-3 filed by the tespondent No.6 it is clear that s\l"l|'B| promoting the petitioner and respondent No.6 on the posf of lectureBlli :'....S5MI' 15.9.1995, name of respondent No.6 was placed above the petifion|igj' •f.. . . '. ,.. ir.ti Record also shows thatthe so called declaration form of respondent No.6! (Annexure P-3) was withdrawn by him on 27.4.1998 (Annexure R-6} because the same was given under some misconeeption. Record alsq reveals thaf on 27.4.1998 (Annexure P-5) a representation was made b^ respondent No.6 for correction in the gradation list of lecturer clearl^ indicting the correct factual positionand making it clear as to on wha^ basis he is senior to the petitioner. Though this representation shQul^ have been decided at an early date, it came to be considered ancf decided by the competent authority in the year 2005 and thereafter the| order impugned dated 13.10.2005 (Annexure P-8) has beenissued directing the placemenf ofthe respondent N0,6 abovethe petitioner. ! 6. Thus from the pleadings of the parties it is quite evident that respondent No.6 is senior to the petitioner not only as Assistant Teacherj Upper Division Teacher but also as Lecturer. In this view ofthe matterj; theorder impugned placing the respondent No.6 above the petitioner.i^i strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the samej; Petition thus being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It IE dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge fl@