LSINGLE gawgH‘ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAsPUR, ' CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No. 751 7/of 20u6 Tehsii: Ambikapur, /»" ‘w $93) PET!TIONERS: 1. Satish Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Rana Shyam Kumar Shrivastava, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Service, Working as Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, Presently posted at Gram Panchayat: Kanthi, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Parmeshwar Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Ramvriksha Sao, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Service, Working as Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, Presently posted at Gram Panchayat: Pokra, Block: Rajpur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Ravindranath Singh, S/o Late Doodhnath Singh, Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Service, Working as Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, Gram Panchayat: Jarhi, Block & Tehsii: Pratappur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Upendra Tiwari, S/o Baieshwar Tiwari, Aged about 43 years, Occupation: Service, Working as Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, Nagar Panchayat: Surajpur, Tehsii: Surajpur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. - Versus - / h) (cg) RESPONDENTS: L 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, 'Women, Child Development 8. Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur, Chhattlsgarh. The Secretary, School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattlsgarh. Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Directorate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. L /5. Commissioner, Panchayat and Sacral Welfare, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, ' Chhattisgarh. Naveen Dutt Bhatt, S/o Late Amba Dutt Bhatt, Aged about 45 years, Rio Vitlage: Mungeli, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. A /7’. arendra Singh Birdhi, S/o Ratan Singh Birdhi, Aged about 5O years, R/o Village: Sarangarh, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Anil Kumar Verma. S/o Late Krishna Chandra Verma, Aged about 47 years, R/o KedarpUr, Joda Plpal, Ambikapur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Ramesh Kuma Sinha, r Rlo Kedarpur, Joda al, Ambikapur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. / H S/o Late Manga Kishore Sina Aged abt 42 years, l h ou Pip @ L /’10. Kunwarelai Kewra, S/o Budh Sen Kewra, Aged about 50 years, R/o Ambikapur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. K /11. Jitendra KumarShrivastava, S/o Ramanuj Prasad Shrivastava, Aged about 43 years, R/o Ambikapur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. K /12. Sushi! Kumar Bada, S/o Prabhu Dayal Bada, Aged aboUt 45 years, R/o Rajpur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Hira Sai Netam, S/o Lohar Sai Netam, Aged about 54 years, R/o Ambikapur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. @— JA. D.P. Agrawai, S/o Prahiad Rai Agrawal, Aged about 50 years, 'At present posted as Education Organizer in the Panchayat and Social Weifare Department, Bilha, R/o Biiha, District: Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh. K / 15. S/o Prakash B.S. Verma, KumarVerma, Aged about 47 years, At present posted as Education Organizer in the Panchayat & Social Weifare Department, Jagdaipur, District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh. A6. Basant Singh Baghei, S/o Jai Narayan Singh Baghei, Aged about 44 years, At present posted as Education Organizer in the Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Jagdalpur, District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Respondents No.6 to 16 above, all working as Education Organizers in the Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare of the Government of Chhattisgarh, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITNVRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC., IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ANDIOR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE / $at‘is; Kumar ghrimtava mm cthers Vemus State of éh’nattisgarh anti others i’reseat :— Shri Rajgav Saiivavtava, comma W1“ ths petitioners. .S. D60, Govt. Advocate for Siamf msponaams a x} S‘mi Jitendra F331, counse} for the reSponc’ientS "No. 6 to é. GKDER W r} gm mirewm. magma. J ?e With ihe C0n$eni of the partias the matter is heam iifgaiiy. ‘2. The instant petition is direcmd againgt. the 035161“ dated 9~ L 12006 of Annexure P~8 Whamby the respondents No. 6 to 16 who were working aS C1auee -3 {Executive} in Ac‘mlt Education Directorate have been posted on the same pay scale Re. 4000— 10C—600G ae ’E’anchayat and Soda} Education Oi‘ganjzer in the Panchayat and Social $ervices Depaximenn 3. Relevant facts neceeeary for adjudication f thie petition are mat the petitioners were appointed on the poet of Gees—3, Mmieterial Senrice in the department of f’anc‘nayat and Sociei welfare between 1981 and 1987. Since 2002, they have been deeignated as Aesistant Gram Fanchajy’at Offlcer. Fetitieneref next promotion woum on the pest of Sub~Auditor and thereafter they would be promoted to the post of ?anc‘nayat fnepector which is equivalent to ?anohayat ancl Social Organizer; whereae the tespontlents No. 6 to 16 were amoointed by Directorate, fJancliayat tine Social Services to the poet of Glaser 3v {Executive} in l \ i r ,/ ?anooayat and, $0oi$ Etinoation Organizer; Supervisor in MP: We o 19? m Panchayat and Sociai weifare department vicie order (iated 18—1— 1980. They were selected by mini Public Service Commission and posted under Aduit Education Programme. The School Education Department of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 2§—5- 1997 declared all the Organizers (Class—3) Executive working under Adult Education Directorate as surplus and vide order Q. ated 6— 1998 their services were permitted to be absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Upper Division Teacher. Pursuant to the above order, vide order dated 9-9—2003, services of the Adult Education S‘upervisors working in the State including services of respondents No. 6 to 16 have been merged in the School Education Department. The Commissioner, Panchayat and Social Services vide letter dated 10-11—2006 of Annexure P4 addressed to Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social 'Welfare, District Sarguja apprised him that Adult Education Supervisors cannot be posted as Panchayat and Social Education Organizers since the Government has declared School Education Department as parent department of Adult Education Organizers. This letter was in reference to a representation submitted by Supervisors Union, Ambikapur, District Sarguja. 4. The respondents No. 6 to 16 filed Writ Petition No. '\ 392912005 and Writ Petition N0. 2205/2004 before this Court challenging the order dated 9—9—2G03 whereby School Education Department had directed absorption of Supervisors working in the Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare as Upper Division Teacher in the School Education department. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioners of those petitions to make detailed representation _ raising their grievance before the competent authority who shall 1"( fl decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible y preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of I] the representation. Thereafter, the Women and Child Development ,‘1 and Social Welfaie Department decided the representation vide order dated 9—l—2006 [Annexme P—S) against which this petition has been preferred. ({9% b. Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that the entire Aduit Education Department stood merged in the School Education Department and in these circumstances, parent department of respondents No. 6 to 16 cannot be changed from the Schooi Education Department to Panchayat and Sociai Services Department. Services of the respondents No. 6 to 16 could not be absorbed in Panchayat and Sociai Services Department and above respondents cannot be posted as Panchayat and Sociai Education Organizers as there is no ruiej'circuiar in this regard as is evident from memo of Annexure E-4‘ The order of Annexure P—8 is tie hers of ruies and, therefore, the same is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It was vehemently contended that from perusal of the order of Annexure P—S, it is ev1dent that the same has been passed purportedly in compliance of the order passed in WP. No. 3929/2003 and W.P. No. .i 2205/ ZUU4 {'Annexures P—6 and P—T respectivelv‘), though there is no such direction by the High Court. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that in compliance of the High Court’s orders passed in WP. No. 3929/2003 and W. P. No. 2205j'2004, the representations of respondents No. 6 to 16 were considered and thereafter they have been posted on the post of Education Organizers in the Panehayat and Social Welfare department on the same pay scale with prior consent of the Fanchavat and Social Welfare department and the School Education department. it is argued that the decision integation of services of respondents No. 6 to 16 in the Panchayat and Social Welfare department has been taken after considering the representations. The petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the above well considered decision of the State. \r 'f . Learned counsel for respondents Not 6 to 16 contended that the parent. department of respondents No. 6 to 16 was Panchavat and Social Service Department as is evident from the order of appointment dated 184—1980. They were appointed in the 4 199 Executive Cadre after being selected by? mini Public Service Commission. Eariier Adult Luucanon Frog; amine was commenced 13V me btate hovermnent wmcn was subsequenuv dosed and the SiatE UOV6I‘11111611t €1TOI1€OUSIV Ct€Clal6d [[1636 TeSDOllCi€IltS a5 TDIUS VVIU’IGUTL IOHOVVHIQ the DIOCESS DI‘ESCI‘lbéd LIDCiCi" {116 185V and WlLhOUt QEZ€tt€ HOUIlCaUOD Und61‘ T121686 CHCUIHSTBJ1C6S the Writ DGUUOHS W€r€ 1116(1 811G 111 pm SuallCe OI U16 01 (i6I'S DaSS6d L11 WH‘It DCUUODS U16 1€SDOI1CI€HIS NO b t0 16 Submlttéd U1€lf 1 EDI‘eSBIKaUOnS t0 T116 C011C6I'116d CIBDaITl'llGrit arid alt61‘ COHSlCiel‘lng U18 gIISVaDCe TaISEG H1 U16 1613I‘eselltatlOllS t11€ btat€ (JOVGI‘ 1m€I1t HaS taKGD T116 C16ClSlOl1 OI ADH€XUT€ P'g. Th6 Detlt1011€lo are ASSIStaIlt (118111 lJaIlCDaVat UfnCel‘ their HeXt promotion is LO me post oi bub Auditor and only thereafter they shah be eiigibie for promotion t0 the post of Panchayat and Sociai Weifare Organizer. The petitioners have no ioeus standi to Chaiienge the order of Annexure P—8. 8. i h ve heaia learned counsel lor the Darnes 9. From perusai of order elated 18 l 198G 11 1s cleai that eeDODCleHLS HO 6 t0 lb “Fele aDDOlHted 111 the (leDalTDleDt Oi lJal-lCHaS/aL and b0Cl&l bel‘VlCe OI elStWHlle btate OI MadilVa Pradesh as Llass d {Executive} and weie posted as Panena‘y at and bOCIal SeFVlCe UlgalnZerS/SuDeHHSOlS XVDOse Sel‘ViceS Were subsequently declared surplus Vide order dated 19—5— 1997 and the same were permitted to be absorbed in the behool Lducanon Department as Upper U1v131on leacher Vide 01 dei dated 6 b 1998 inell‘ sel‘VlCeS VVele aDSOl bed 111 the bCHOOl EducaUOD UeDal Ullel'lt 811d agan’l‘St U118 Oldei tWO \Vl‘lt DeUUQDS Were Illed D‘V tile FESDODdeHtS NO b t0 lb However Order dated 9 l ZUUu WaS l'lOt given eIIeCI t0 and. tneV W616 DOT: TelleVed H0111 Ulell“ (leDal Ll'llel’lt On the Dams of the interim Older passed 1n W f No d929/20U3 and they weie allowed to contmue tiii their representation was decided. Thus from the above facts it is ciear that the absorptions of the respondents No b to 16 in the behool Lclucation UeDalUHellt 113$ DOC Been eileCted 811G 11" {He 111e81’1W7i1iie, The r wnww/ representatlon 01 respondents No. 6 to i6 has been aiiowed and they have 110W been posted in the department of Panchavat and Sociai Service vide order vide Annexnre P—S dated 9- 1—2006. 10. The petitioners are chaiienging the above order on the ground that by posting respondents Not 6 to 16 in the department of the petitioners, Chances of promotion of the petitioners shali be ahected because the petitioners are also to be promoted firstlv to the post of Sub Auditor and thereafter to the post of Panohayat and Sociai Welfare Organizers. 1 1. 1t is settled law that a right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, chances of promotion are not; Hence the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. In the present case What was anected Dy the change of poiicy were / inerei‘y the chances of promotion of the petitioners and their right or eiigibiiit’y to be considered for promotion remained unaffected, therefore, the policy decision of the Government to post respondents No. 6 to 16 in Panchavat and Social Welfare department is not open to judicial review. Reliance is placed in'the matters of K. Janadeesan -—v~ finian of fnd'ia and others D t i990.2 SCC “228, ifm‘on offnd‘ia anti athera —-v~ SL. Eutta and another {i99 ii i SCC 505 and ifnion of india and others —v~ NY [mate and others {1998} 6 SCC 741. lt is also settled law that when personnel drawn from different sources are being absorbed and integrated in a new department, it is primarilv for the Government or the executive authority concerned to decide as a matter of policv how the equation of posts should be effected and the Court will not interfere with such a decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, and if no manifest unfairness or unreasonableness is made out, the Court will not sit 1n appeal and exammethe propriety or wisdom of the principle of equation of posts adopted by the Government. Reliance is placed in the matter of RS Mlakasiti and ether-s mu Lid. fifenen and gathers (E82) i SCC 3'79 and Tamii fifadu E‘ ‘ueatien vk. i §em1rtmeni Ministerfai m& Generai Suborrzi‘inafe Services Associufion and‘ athers —v- Sfafe of Tamii Nad‘u and’ others gwau; SLL 12. 111 the mstant case as naS Deén aireadv OD aved in the IOlgOlng Daragl‘aDHS that 16SDODC1€111ZS NO b t0 lb W€T€ mluallV aDD0111t€Cl ll] U19 C1€DaFLH1€1TC OT FallCl'laVat alld bOCldl WGHal‘ b€rV1ce 01 the erstwnue State ol MP they were posted as Panchayat and Sociai Education Organizers]Supervisors. They discharged their duties for more than '25 years in this post since 1980. They do not have any teaching experience and, therefore there absorptions in the School Education Department as UIDT. would not have sewed the purpose. In these circumstances, the order of Annexure P—S by which the petitioners have been posted in Panchayat and Sociai Service Department cannot be iauited. The petitioners do not have any focus stamii to Iiie this petition oniy on the ground that their chances of promotion are hampered as the chances of promotion are neither a right nor they are conditions of services. i3. In the result, the petition being devoid of substances; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No. 764-[2006 and LA. No. 77601‘2006 also stand disposed of. I l4. Consequently, M.W.P. NJ Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- ‘ v