Gyanchand Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:17557

¶3

NAFR

¶4

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.17 18:27:06 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 264 of 2025

¶7

1 - Haldhar Prasad Sahu Shri Daduram Sahu, Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School, Farhada Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bachchu Ram Sahu, Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School, Dheka Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Smt. Shipra Singh Baghel W/o Shri Suraj Singh Baghel, Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School, Bijour Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur- (C.G.)

¶13

2 - The Director, Public Instruction, Directorate Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

3 - The Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

4 - The District Education Officer, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

WPS No. 508 of 2025

¶19

1 - Suraj Kumar Soni S/o Late Ram Nath Soni Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Village Chakarbhatha, Block Bilha, District Bilapur (C.G.)

¶20

Petitioner(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G.

¶23

2 - The Director Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G.

¶24

3 - The Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.

¶25

4 - The District Education Officer District Bilaspur, C.G.

¶26

Respondent(s)

¶27

WPS No. 1056 of 2025

¶28

1 - Gyanchand Pandey S/o Shri Chandrika Pandey Aged About 56 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School, Charpara Pandhi Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶29

Petitioner(s)

¶30

Versus

¶31

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶32

2 - The Director, Public Instruction, Directorate Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipour, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶33

3 - The Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶34

4 - The District Education Officer District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶35

Respondent(s)

¶36

3

¶37

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶38

For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocates

¶39

For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. GA

¶40

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶41

Order on Board

¶42

16/04/2025

¶43

Since common issue and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being considered together and are being decided by this common order.

¶44

Heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Ashwani Shukla learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent/s.

¶45

By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents’ authorities to follow the guidelines dated 07/02/2022, 07/11/2022 & 29/03/2023 issued by the respondents’ authorities with regard to posting of Head Masters.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that while the petitioners working as Assistant Teacher (LB) under the Department of School Education and posted at different schools, they were promoted to the post of Head Masters. According to the petitioners, the respondents/DPI issued guidelines with regard to the posting of the Head Masters to the effect that if the post of Head Master is lying vacant in the same school where they are presently posted as Assistant

¶47

4

¶48

Teacher in such case they should be given posting in the same institution further that if posts are lying in the same Block in that case they should be given posting in the same Block and if no post is lying vacant in Block in such case within the District and if no post is vacant in the District in such condition they should be given posting in nearby District. At the time of issuance of promotion order dated 27/12/2024 the petitioners were posted as Assistant Teacher (L.B.) and the posts of Head Master are lying vacant in their respective schools yet the petitioners have been posted at other places.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after promotion of the petitioners to the post of Headmaster, a counseling was directed to be done so that the petitioners and likewise headmasters may be posted as per their promotion order. However, without following the due process, the petitioners have not been given the posting as per the option submitted by them. Though the petitioner submits that as per aforesaid circular of the State Government, a direction has been issued that if the post are lying vacant, the promoted teachers may be posted in the same school from where they were promoted. According to the petitioners, posts of Head Masters are lying vacant in the said Blocks/Schools itself. As such they are praying that the effect and operation of posting order may be quashed.

¶50

5

¶51

Heard the respective counsels. Since the counsel for the petitioners are only seeking a direction to the effect that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioners.

¶52

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of circular dated 07.02.2022 issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction/respondent No.2 (For short ‘DPI’), and also in the interest of justice, the petitioners are directed to submit their respective representations by raising their grievances before respondent No.2/DPI within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the said authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of 15 days, in accordance with law/as per the guidelines issued by the State Govt. and on its own merits. Till the period of 30 days, the effect and operation of order dated 27.12.2024 in respect of the present petitioners is hereby stayed and they are allowed to work in their respective schools where they are working before promotion.

¶53

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶54

Rahul

Gyanchand Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanchand Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sarita Sharma Vs Pramod Joshi

Pramila Lanjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Prasad Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Haldhar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hari Ram Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh