'iS^SE^t^'^lssa ^^^^^j^&^-;^^^?'::^--^^^^^^^^^^^:^^^ —g— 1& Itt^ Q8^ ^ fcS^ SA^ ^^ laiti&^ 1$ |a.ys t^ teh ki^. ~: laAtiaj, 1$ IskaS^llsE -g l^ AjLfi&E Q^6S || ^^ ^ fea fcS^lB -: faA&S^ 11 ^iffi -I S&61 iti2ii^pE • taitt^E si^&J&^ fi&ii .i.tt 6{ iim^s&^ & I^^IIE .=ct:k;»t.>^^-.j.^ ^ .^ L^i.^ JtJtt^ iB&^ USfe^ S^B ^BJAg AlaE -E (^s^ /Qlb^s I- < l,fi 11^3. fcJiJtt .£.it -S .k.a ^S&ii 'si&i^t h&Qj, J^ BIA 'Bfc^fi llJ&a. bfiJE& ^Stcfi^.a -t iBtf^ Ad8 aeita^ a^fialji ABia£ !&;.£ fi^JMt6 '^&^ jrb li&£ S5J.B; laifiS fa^ .BA Ifil^ bajj2.y» .BA Bi g_5-^? .('Q](X.1^-S]^) \ ' A.& AafriAfi.Vi^M^^Sk^fi^^telA »£.&11^^^ Sy 'undiy'd 'IWS'll '"'W 3"t? 'o' 'W \/e/^s{S.y^ 10^ fl-PV .;/T'5-v,jr^-:-^"i-(^-."v? ^ -/epoi paii^ 'Q'P-W -ifCS.I- ' ~:s. ~', %,,.„„. ! n '^ f^ ^ s "fcs-tf~ >'.^£ :("- ^7 ^.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH :HON'BLE SHM MANINDRA KIOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS flfritPetition (S) No.3637/2005 L.P. Yadav Versus State of M.P. (now C.G.) and others Appearance: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 &3. QRAL-ORDER (Passed on 23.03.2010) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved on account of alleged supersession in the matter of promotion to the post of Principal vide order dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure A-l). 2. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed on 31.7.1961 as Upper Division Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 22.11.1975. Pursuant to Government decision to consider for promotion all those Upper Division Teachers who were appointed on or before 12th March 1962, petitioners case was liable to be considered for promotion. However, when order dated 7.4.1999 was issued, petitioner found that his name has not been included in the said order. Aggrieved by non- consideration and non-promotion, petitioner, represented to the "..iS^ -•f' t:-'.^-^^"'^ \\ '"2gS>^ g -2- V '^:3 i'f v K ^ authorities. Vide memo dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure A-2), details of eligible Upper Division Teachers/Lectures were sent to the Commissioner for consideration as left out cases. This contained the name of petitioner also. Petitioner also submitted representation on 17.4.1999 (Annexure A-5) for consideration of his case for proruotion on the basis of his seniority. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that though after the petition was filed, the pedtioner has been promoted, he is entitled to be given promotion on the post of Principal from the date other Upper Division Teachers/Lecturers were proraoted. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the relief claimed by the petitioner has been granted to him inasmuch as he has been proinoted. Referring to the averments made in the return, it is argued that vide order dated 1.1.1999 passed by the Director, Public Instructions, Bhopal, Upper Division Teachers and Lecturers were promoted on the post of Principal, but in that order name of the petitioner was no included as the petilioner was junior at that time and his seniority was not covered for promotion on the post of Principal. Thereafter on 11.2.1999, Joint Director sent list of those Lectures and Upper Division Teachers whose names were left out whereupon name of the petitioner was included and he was promoted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of promotion on the post of Principal w.e.f. 1.1.1999 when other Upper Division Teachers/Lecturers were proinoted. Petitioner .has not placed on record copy of order dated .'riSEa^ ^^^ "^ f(1^.2 ^. K^"'^???^'^. ^ !.. 3 M -3- ^-4p 1.1.1999, but order dated 7.4.1999 issued in modification of earlier order dated 1.1.1999. From the averments made in the retum filed by the respondents, it is found fhat eariier the name of the petitioner was left out and, therefore, later on, narue of the petitioner as well as other left out Upper Davison Teacher/Lecturers was sent resulting in issuance of their promotion orders. Petitioner though claims that he was entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 1.1.1999 on the strength of his seniority, it has not been demonstrated with reference to the gradation list that those Upper Division Teachers/Lecturers pronioted vide Order dated 1.1.1999 werejunior to the petitioner. As such, no direction can be issued tp respondents to give promotion to the petitioner from the date other Upper Division Teacher/Lecturers were promoted. 7. Respondents Authority may consider this aspect. If it is found that Upper Division Teacher/Lectures proraoted vide order dated 1.1.1999 were placed below the petitioner in the gradation list, petitioner would also be entitled to seniority from the date those persons were promoted. 8. With this direction, the petition is finally disposed of. Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ,