Dismissed

Gaurav Mangrulkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2016WPS/3572/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of two writ petitions filed by Assistant Teachers seeking promotion in the Maths category instead of Arts. The Court held that such classification is for authorities to decide and directed the petitioner to file a representation to the concerned department.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file representation to authorities; petitions disposed of.

Gaurav Mangrulkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3572 of 2016

¶4

Gaurav Mangrulkar S/o Late N.K.Mangrulkar, Aged about 32 years, R/o LIG 55, Deendayal Colony, Mangla, PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Smt. Pushplata Shukla W/o Shri R.S.Shukla, AGed about 27 years, R/o KBT MIG/288, Deendayal Awas, PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Smt. Snehal Nanoti W/o Shri Ashish Nanoti, aged about 38 years, R/o Kasturba Nagar, Jarhabhata, PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Smt. Neha Yadav W/o Shri B.L.Yadav, Aged about 37 years, R/o Yadav Mohalla, Tikrapara, PS City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Smt. Manju Singh Thakur, W/o Shri A.S.Thakur, AGed about 34 years, R/o Ram Nagar, Tikripara, Takhatpur, PS Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition (S) No. 3593 of 2016

¶17

Roshan Sharma S/o Shri H.L.Sharma, Aged about 33 years, R/o Near SBR College, Om Nagar, PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

Smt. Reena Pandey W/o Shri Ashish Pandey, Aged about 34 years, R/o A/62, Gitanjali Enclave, Ring Road 2, PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

---- Petitioners

¶20

Versus

¶21

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

---- Respondents

¶26

For Petitioners : Shri N.N.Roy, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶27

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.

¶29

Order on Board

¶30

Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice

¶31

10/08/2016

¶32

Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions of fact and law.

¶33

The grievance of the Petitioners, who are commerce graduate and presently employed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), is that the Respondents only consider them for promotion as Teachers in the Arts category. They claim that they should be considered at par with the Maths teacher.

¶34

Before approaching this Court, the Petitioners have not made any representation to the authorities concerned.

¶35

The question whether a commerce graduate should be considered for promotion in the Arts stream or in the Maths stream is not for this Court to decide and it is for the authorities to decide. If the Petitioners have any grievance, they may make a representation to the authorities concerned within a period of four weeks from today alongwith a copy of this order, and the same shall be disposed of by the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, by a reasoned order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation and direction, both these petitions stand disposed of.

¶37

Sd/Sd/-

¶38

(Deepak Gupta) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶39

Amit

Gaurav Mangrulkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Mangrulkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jethuram @ Jethu Yadaw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prince Singh Vs Smt. Varsha Singh

Jitendra Hirwani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kunjbihari Vs State of C.G.

Union Of India Vs Ku. Reena Kushwaha

Roshan Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh