HIGH CGURT GF CHHATHSGARH AT BIR LASPU D‘B HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA,§_: HON BLE SHRI R N CHANDRAKAR JJ Writ Appeai Na 30 of 2011 Appellants (Petitioners) 1. Ashok Kumar Manda! S/o $hn JR Manda! aged about 43 years R/o Khongapam Manendragarhr Distrmt Kenya (CG) Smt Sushlla Khal ho W/o Mane} Khalkho age about (CG) 41 years R{o Baikunthpur District Koriy Smt Tara Nlkum‘ Wio Yugal Kumar Nlkunj, aged about 36 years RIP Vliiage — Munjhar Tahsu — Balkunthpur District-Konya (CG) State of Chhattlsgarh through Its Secretary, Tribai Wekfare Department DKS Bhawan Ralpur (CG) The Callectar Kenya District Kanya (CG) Versus Respondents 1 . 2. 3. 4. The Commssmner Tnba! Welfaxe Department Ralpur District Raipur (CG) The Asststant Commssmner, Triba! Weifare, Koriya‘ Bistrict Koriya (CG) Present I ; Shn Goutam Khetrapal eeuneei ier the appeltante Shh UNS Deo Gavt Advocate fer the State ORAL JUDGMENT (25m January, 201 1) Per Shirendra Mtshra J The appellant Tied writ petmon chaiien‘bmg the legality and vahdity of the commumcatmn dated 4.9.2010 whereby respondent No.4 directed Block EduCation Gmeers of District—Kenya to invite applicatione for posting of the inteitested teachers as Hestei Superintendent in different hestets Situated within the district. 02:. Reiecting’the centention of the petitiene'rs that posting of teachers as Hostel Superintendents by the impuénedk'communication is contrary to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Adirn Jati, Anusuchit Jati Avam Pichhada Varg Kaiyan Adhinastha Seva (Tritiya Varg Aiipikiya) Bherti Niryam, 1994 (in short he Niyarn 1994") the teamed Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition With‘ an observation that by the impugned communication applications have heen minted for posting he eligible candidates it is a ease of posting of teachers and not ior appomtrnem of Hostel Superintendent The subject-matter is not appointment of Hostel Superintendent through ' i d a recruitment thuS, the previsions of aboVe stated Niyam, 1994 are not applicable. ‘ 03. Shri Goutam Khetrapai 1eamed ccJunselforthe appellants reiterating the arguments advanced before the learnee Single Judge submits that the impugned eommumcatlon Is m ‘espect of appomtment as once the pasts of Hostel Superintendent are flied up, no direct recruitment can be made for the particuiar post The posts of Fostel S permtendent and posts of Upper DMston Teacher are of the same rank and therefore the eligibility criteria for recruitment are also the same in such crrcumstances the condition of quahticatron mentioned In the Impugned communication is not sustainabie As per impugned communication, even ASSistant Teachers/Shikshakarmi Grade-m are etigibte for the post of Hostel Superintendent, however, without their promotion to the substantive poet, they cannot work as Hostel Superintendent. r The appellants are working as Hospital Superintendent However their applications have been rejected on the ground of qualifcation Since they are holding the substantive post of Upper DiViSion Teacher it cannot be aid that they are not havmg proper qualifcation for the post of Hostel Suerintendent o4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned order argued that the answering respondents are not making recruitment or promotion on the post of Hostel/Aashram Superintendent. Appiications have been invited from willing teachers for the aforesaid post from the same class, who draw similar salaties. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has obsewed that the substantive post ofthe petitioners is Upper Division Teacher and they have been posted as Hostel Superintendent However their applications are not being considered for continuation as Hostel Superintendent n View of the impugned communication. Since it’s. a case of posting of teachers and not for appointment as Hostel Superintendent through recruitment, the provisions of Niyam, 1994 are not appiicable. lf the petitioners meet with the required ualification, as prescribed in the impugned communication, they may also be considered for fresh'posting as Hostel Superintendent by virtue of their being posted earlier. t 05. Heard learned counsel for the partie. ; i s p q s i 06 From bare perusal of the impugned c$mmunication and the counter affldawt flied by the respondents/State it i=1; mamfestly clear that m the present case the Hostet Superintendents are not bemg appomted by tecrwtment but the watlmg and ehgtbte ca didates are bemg pasted as; . Hostet Superintendents and therefore, we are of the eptmon that the teamed Dhirendra Mishra1 I x ; e Singte Judge has rightly obsewed that nb writ can be issued to the of respondents Hostel Superintendent. to censider the We case find of the no‘subsltance petitioners in for this promotion appeal, to the the same post; deserves to be and is‘ accordingly, dismissedt Judge @