IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 5 ^•c?2—OF 2011. ^ PETITIONER 'l..- M l.-^ ^^w- ..•-;";'^c?ss' ^s.-""' .^y.^ ^y. 9<e" s^'^ RESPONDENTS K. R.Sahu, S/o. late Shri N. R. Sahu, aged about 56 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Kariha Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C. G.) VLEJR. S U S :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^"^ ..^^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 4.* District Education Officer, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) w- 5. Madan lal Gunendra, S/o. not known aged about 50 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Panawar, Block Pakhanjur, District Kanker (C. G.) 6. P. R. Kunjam, S/o. not known aged about 45 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Arod, Block Charama, District Kanker (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IB131: ..-"•„£;."%. ,'!' fi ^ f1;'-.^...... '^. ^ "^^Q^y: sn^i w 1<-i Wt sn^s »*<ro Deepii 3~sr -<4i^ici'4, ®fll^'i(»,fs|diy^< —......y3.!?.^)...!'A^.-^^ / LL ^......^.^...^............................^^Q 3ii^7('(ra^7 (1pf3^t) t^IIWtlfel SIT^I °bll(it«(l-lIFRff'? fe-;] "rfSr^it ^sifims^?' ^b : Hon'bteSrin Maninara monah snnvasrava, J.— ~— The promotion of respondenl 290-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, counse| for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, Panei L^wyer for the State/respondents 1 to 4 on advance copy. s 5 and 6 stated to be junior to the petitioners has given rise petitioner's grievaitice, in respect of which, the petitioner has 1 preferred representation to the jrespondent /' State Education Officer on 12/03/2010. The case of the petitioner isi there are no adverse remarks agaii|ist him nor any punishment.has been Imposed upon him by the authority. He subjnits that the criteria for promotion is seniority- cum-fitness and therefore, the petitijiner oughtto have been given promotion. The claim of the petitioner djaes not appear to be frivoious. Therefore, the respondent is under an obligation promotion w.e.f. the date when his |uniors were promoted. Accordingiy, respondent Noj to take decision in the matter, representation within a period of tht this order. In case, it is found that the that his juniors were promoted, n that he is senior to respondents 5 and 6 and to decide petitioner's application for grant of P, who is stated to be the compeient authority is directed to take decision on petitioner's ree months from the date of receipt of copy of betitioner is entitled for promotion on the basis ^cessary orders may be passed granting him promotion without consequentiaf b^nefits. With the aforesaid observati^ns, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge ^^r; a^H$re, 7'^^^!ra—FS/i40-—2/20! i —1,50,000.