Disposed

Ravi Kumar Banjara v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Mar 2021WPS/1142/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a TGT, sought promotion to PGT. Court directed respondents to consider his promotion claim and refrain from filling the post via Guest Lecturers. Court directed fresh representation to be submitted within 15 days for a decision within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's promotion claim and not to fill the post by engaging Guest Lecturers. Directed submission of fresh representation within 15 days.

Ravi Kumar Banjara Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1142 of 2021

¶5

Ravi Kumar Banjara S/o Santram Banjara Aged About 40 Years Posted As T.G.T. Science At Eklavya Model Residential School, Chhotemudpar (Kharsiya), District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) R/o Village Sukhatal, Lormi, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, (Naya Raipur), PO And PS Rakhi, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Commissioner-Cum-Director Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Assistant Commissioner Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner For State

¶13

: Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶15

02/03/2021

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is working on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (in short, TGT) under the Eklavya Model Residential School, Chhotemudpar (Kharsiya), District Raigarh.

¶17

According to the petitioner, he has already put in more than five years of service as a TGT and thus has become eligible for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Lecturer) (in short, PGT). According to the petitioner, there are around roughly 25 posts of PGT (Science) sanctioned by the Government for the said school

¶18

¶19

and that the petitioner being eligible for promotion should have been considered for promotion to the post of PGT in the aforesaid subject.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he is entitled for promotion which the authorities are not considering however at the same time the respondents are issuing advertisement for filling up of the post by way of Guest Lecturer thereby depriving the claim of the petitioner for promotion. According to the petitioner, if the respondents keep on the filling up of the post by way of Guest Lecturer the post would never lie vacant and the petitioner would never get an occasion for being promoted against the said post. The petitioner further referred to an order passed by this court in WPS No.6642 of 2019 wherein this court vide its order dated 02.09.2019 have already ordered the respondents to consider promotion to the post of PGT from among the eligible TGT in the Science Subject and therefore similar direction in this case also to be issued so far as Science subject is concerned which pertains to the petitioner against the available vacant post of PGT.

¶21

The State counsel submits that the question of promotion would have to be considered purely in accordance with the promotion rules governing the filed and it also needs to be verified whether other Govt. Teachers from the other schools could also be promoted against the vacancies available in the Eklavya Model Residential School under which circumstances there is a possibility of there being many more senior persons than the petitioner in the respective subject.

¶22

¶23

Given the said submissions by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition at this juncture in the opinion of this court can be disposed of directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner of being considering their promotion from the post of TGT to the post of PGT and also consider his request of not to fill up the post of PGT by engaging Guest Lecturer periodically.

¶24

Let a fresh representation in addition to any earlier representation which the petitioner have made be made within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with all supporting documents and the respondents No.1 & 2 in turn shall decide the same at the earliest in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a further period of 90 days.

¶25

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶27

Ved

Ravi Kumar Banjara v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Banjara 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

Yogesh Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khemraj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhdev Prasad Singroul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bahoran Kumbhkar

Swarup Dutta Roy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swaran Kaur Bamrah Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited