6^ 2TO @ B^^?^^ © IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.%^b- /2009 PETITIONER A VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^ ^^^ -..•"\~y li.^" &<...•- ^^^5&^;^,^ ^I^^^^ 4 •f. Tulsiram Dhankar, S/o. SIiri Dukliuraiii Dhankar, 48 ycars, Presently posted as Upper Division Teacher, Govermnent Middle School, Baronda, Block- Fingeshwar, District-Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaxy, of Education, D.K.S Bha^van Mantrala^'a, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raipur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Fingeshwar, District-Raipur (C.G.) Mastcr, Government Middle School, Patharra, Block- Fingeshwaj-, Rajpur (C.G.), Vishwanath Dhruv, Head Master, Government Middle School, Dhamni, Block- Fingeshwar, Raipur (C.G.) Anil Kumar Dee'wan, Master, (Boys), Fingeshwar, Block- Fmgeshwar, Raipur (c.a), Rohit Kumar Dhruv, Head Master, Government Middle School, Kurusakera, Block- Fingeshwar, Raipur (C.G.), WRIT pETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA -^;y?:.^sa^ 3TI^T "^T f^'lJob 'cT8n 3-n^T sb^icb *IMCTI th^licn 7^T ^iiqKnq, ^Ti1^4i(o, f®i<rii^^< . lG.P.(^v^o.^<3^/^ TW--:''-l--v-^"""--"I-'-TFt200 3TT^?T^^! ( ^qf^^) ^'CTW^n 3;TT^T SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J 20-06-2011 Shri Chandresh Shrivasta^ Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Shri Shashank Thakur, Though repiy of nied by respondents 1 to 3, l an^ disposed off finaliy. The petitioner, in this petit| promotion. According to the Division Teacher is entitled to post of Head Master. He considered for promotion, no other hand, Upper Division considered and promoted to the {) On the other hand, recommendations in respect post of Head Master have been| the Court in W.P.(S) No.620^ terminated from service as it forged caste certificate. At present, the petitioner order passed in the aforesaid adjudicated. Learned State been kept in a sealed cover andj 6203/07 obi<it<n<I1i '^Tm^if ^ f^rt <Fai<^i< '5fr3tRW37T^T |a, counsel for the petitjoner. ^awyer for the State/ respondents 1 to 3. coipnsei for respondents 4,5 and 7. respond^nts 4, 5 and 7 is not fiied, in view of repiy of the opinion that the matter needs to be :|on has raised grievance on account of non- rfetitioner, the petitioner, working as Upper bej considered for promotion to the next higher subr|iits that even though his case has been ord^rs of promiotion are being issued and on the Tea|shers, who were junior to him, have been ^ost of Head Master. learned State counsei submits that of ti^e petitioner in the matter of promotion to the jkept in a sealed cover awaiting decision of He submits that the petitioner was found that the petitioner has submitted w&s ps coniinuing in service by virtue of interim |case and the matter has not been finally coitnsel submite that recommendations have ! the same wili be disciosed after conclusion A-^,: XI-HC—78 ^TT^T ^T'f^TbF ^T^T STT^T^RW Deepti *ii*icrli w»licb ^^ ^l^ld-M., ^Tn<!H4i<o, f®i(ni'H>j,< US.P.(S>)w,.^^^ "^ 200 3^?T TT^cF (11GI^<1^) ^cTTW^f^T^TT^I _ ^- Thle pa&sed of the Court proceedings. recommendations of the departmei|ttai in a sealed cover, has not been respondents. Learned State couns^l policy for such a course of actiorl service by virtue of interim order or not, a person is fit for promotion <{: in service by virtue of interim order| is a matter for consideration by the| the Govemment's policy. The matt^ authority / departmental promotioni shali be considered by the respond^nts policy as to whether a person can| continuing in service by virtue of int( based on ailegation? as are Jevei^d petitioner therefore, shall be cons| State authorities, in accordance witif With the aforesaid obser/atid c?)i<<F<n<flTi *ij*i<nlf "^ fec<rt iFai^K ^ 3?RpT 37T^T reievant rules, under which, the promotion committee have been kept sri>ecificaily placed before this Court by the couid not point out that there exists any in case, the petitioner is continuing in in anyjudicial proceedings. Whether (>n account of the fact that he is continuing staying effect and operation of the order, Idepartmentalpromotion committee under trrequires consideration bythe competent jcommittee. The fitness of the petitioner on the basis of existing Govemmenfs |be rewarded with promotion where he is ^rim order against the order of termination in the present case. The case of the jdered expeditiously by the respondent 7 their own guidelines. |ns,the petition is finaliy disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge