tf;'t , t«^ IN THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FCHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITION No.=-_ 2^6 / 2007. S.B. PETITIONER: - -/y jGhhatisgarh Siksha Karmis Sa^gh, District Mahas&mund (C.G. ) Having It's Reg. No.63/01/C.G. Represented By its Regional Vice- /•''rffl" M'A,yi''' ..•<f President Mr. Keshav Ram Sahu, Shiksha Karmis Grade-III, Mahasamund, . District-Mahasamund (C.G.) -: VERSU S: - RESPONDENTS: ¥- ,1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, C.G. Govt. Department of Panchayat SE Gramin Vikas, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^ The Director-Panchayat, ,<^ Panchayat D.K.S. Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3, The CoUector, -/" „ , , ' Mahasaraund, Distt.Mahasamund(Chhattisgarh) t L-11 \'~'..-.. ??^r-.- -•• 4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Mahasamund, Distt.Mahasamund(Chhattisga^h). = WRLT^E'nTION UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORTTIEJSSUAircEOF DIRECTION (S) OR ORDER (S). 1 • &d. B HIfiH COURT OF CHHATTrSSARM AT BILA5PUR W. P. fe) No. 318 of 2007 Petitioner : Chhattisgarh Siksha Karmis Sangh Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh & others Single Bcnch: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnitotri. 3hr\ J.A. Lohani, Advocate for Ihe Petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Oeputy Sovemment Advocate for the respondents/State. OR&ER (Passed on 221*d Ooy of JanuarY, 2007) 1. This is a case, where the membws of Ihe Petitiener-Union are impugning the orders duted 6.12.2W6 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Secretary. fiovemment of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat ond Rurul Oevelopment Depart-ment in Case No. 227/B/Nyay,/P/20 -06 and 5.10.2006 (Annexuro P/2) passed by the Direetor, Ponchaytrt, Chhatl-isgarh. Raipur in Appeals No. 62/8-121/05-06 cnd 60/B- 121/05-06. The Director after having considered Schedtde-4 of the Chhott'isyirh Pcnchoyat Karmi (Recruitment ond Condition of Service) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rutes, 1997'), wherein under Schedule-4 it is clwirly provided that fer promotion to Siikdiu Karmi 6rade-2 from Shikdw Karmi firode-3, the requirement of education is Bachelor degree <md 7 years of teoching experience. The imfwgned orders provide for promotion vn accordance with ScheAile on subject-wise. 2, The petitioner-Union has impugned -the orders on the ground •that the rules as well as -the notification dated t JtBuiory. 1998 rx.F.s-^SBEsa.st ws'9'" f:: (Araiexure P/6) and the Circular dated 17.10.20(% (Annexure P/5) do not provide for aibject-wise promotion. 3. I have gone Ihrough the orders, rutes ond relevant circulars. The rules ond relevont circukirs provide for educational qualificotion i.e. graduate degree <md 7 years of teaching wqwrience. The snid rules cnd circutars do not provide that how the promotions of the Shikdia Karmi Srade-III woutd be made to Shiksha Karmi Srade- II. The director. havmg noted +hat the vacancies are subject-wise and teachers ure also promoted subject-wise directed as above cnd held that the promotion list be prepared as subject-wise, so that the science teachers would also get. advnntage of promotun in their subjects. 4. In do not find any mfirmity in the order of providmg this method, by which the promotions have been niade more effective and useful. If the promotions ore not subject-wise there may be promotions on the basis of ffiniority or avf other ground and the science teachers. who are required for teaching science subjeet', may not be promoted. This wouM not serve •the purpose of promotions. Thus, no interference is worronted with -the impU9ned orcbrs. S. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is acGordmgly dismissed. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •^'