Charan Singh Churendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Nov 2025WPS/2849/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion denial; Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to Teacher (E-cadre) English; initial gradation list Serial No. 500; final promotion list 06.04.2023; Abhishek Kumar Pandey; Upper Division Teacher (English) vacancies; pending representation; fresh representation within two weeks; reasoned speaking order within 45 days; transfer on own request Kabirdham to Balod 09.02.2022; DPC seniority cut-off 01.01.2020; non-joinder of necessary parties objection; WPS No. 2849 of 2023; 2025:CGHC:55473; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh comprehensive representation within two weeks; competent authority to decide it objectively in accordance with law with specific reasons on the Serial No. 500 claim and eligibility, by a reasoned speaking order within 45 days, communicated to the petitioner forthwith; no order as to costs. ¶¶41

Charan Singh Churendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose name stood at Serial No. 500 in the initial gradation list for English, was rightly denied consideration for promotion from Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to Teacher (E-cadre) for English, the position having been occupied by Abhishek Kumar Pandey in the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023. +2 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The issue raised involves an administrative determination as to the petitioner's placement in the gradation list and his eligibility for consideration in the promotion process; such factual aspects are required to be examined and clarified by the competent authority based on service records and the relevant promotion guidelines.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions and without commenting upon the validity of the promotion list dated 06.04.2023, the writ petition is disposed of with directions.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation before the competent respondent authority within two weeks, setting out all grievances with relevant documents, including his claim to Serial No. 500 in the initial gradation list and its omission from the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023.ratio¶¶35
Upon receipt of the representation with a certified copy of the order, the respondent authorities shall objectively consider and decide it in accordance with law, specifically recording reasons why the petitioner was not placed at Serial No. 500 in the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023 and whether he was otherwise eligible and entitled for consideration.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) disposed of WPS No. 2849 of 2023 filed by Charan Singh Churendra, an Assistant Teacher (L.B.) (English), who alleged that despite standing at Serial No. 500 in the initial gradation list he was omitted from the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023 for promotion from Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to Teacher (E-cadre)/Upper Division Teacher (English), the position being occupied by Abhishek Kumar Pandey. The State opposed, citing non-joinder of promoted employees and the petitioner's transfer on his own request from Kabirdham to Balod (joined 09.02.2022) after the DPC's seniority cut-off of 01.01.2020. Without expressing any opinion on merits or the validity of the promotion list, and leaving all questions of inter se merit, seniority and eligibility open, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh comprehensive representation within two weeks and directed the competent authority to decide it objectively, recording specific reasons on the Serial No. 500 claim and eligibility, by a reasoned speaking order within 45 days, to be communicated forthwith. No costs.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.11.14 10:50:53 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:55473

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2849 of 2023

¶7

Charan Singh Churendra S/o Harish Chandra Churendra Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 71, Shikaritola Road, Kusumkasa Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh PIN-491228.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director Directorate of Public Education, First Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Joint Director, Education Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - District Education Officer Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Block Education Officer Dondi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶18

13.11.2025

¶19

1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶20

¶21

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for promotion.

¶22

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within stipulated time.

¶23

10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶24

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been considered for promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to the post of Teacher (E-cadre) for the subject English, despite being fully eligible and having fulfilled all requisite conditions prescribed under the relevant rules and circulars governing such promotion. It has been further submitted that in the initial gradation list, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 500 under the subject English; however, in the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023, the said position has been occupied by one Abhishek Kumar Pandey, which is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to law.

¶25

3. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted a detailed representation before the competent authority seeking redressal of his grievance, but the same is still pending consideration. It is also brought to the

¶26

¶27

notice of this Court that several posts of Upper Division Teacher (English) are still lying vacant in the same area, yet the petitioner’s legitimate claim for promotion has not been considered till date. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation in accordance with law and, if found eligible, to extend the benefit of promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher (English) from the due date, with all consequential benefits.

¶28

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the petitioner has challenged the promotion order dated 06.04.2023 without impleading those employees who have already been promoted pursuant thereto. On merits, it is submitted that the petitioner was transferred on his own request from District Kabirdham to District Balod, and as per settled law, an employee so transferred loses his previous district seniority and is placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee district. The DPC considered cases up to seniority as on 01.01.2020, whereas the petitioner joined in Balod on 09.02.2022; hence, his case was not within the zone of consideration. It has been submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and Government instructions, and there is no illegality or irregularity in the promotion process. The petitioner has no vested right to promotion, only a right to consideration, which was duly

¶29

¶30

afforded. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶31

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with the writ petition.

¶32

6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the documents placed on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner primarily relates to his non-consideration for promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to the post of Teacher (E-cadre) for the subject English, despite his name having been reflected at Serial No. 500 in the initial gradation list, and the same position having been subsequently shown in the name of another individual, namely Abhishek Kumar Pandey, in the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023.

¶33

7. This Court is of the considered view that the issue raised by the petitioner involves an administrative determination as to his placement in the gradation list and his eligibility for consideration in the promotion process. Such factual aspects are required to be examined and clarified by the competent authority, based on the service records and the relevant promotion guidelines. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions and without commenting upon the validity of the promotion list dated 06.04.2023, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶34

¶35

The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation before the competent respondent authority within a period of two weeks from today, specifically setting out all his grievances and enclosing relevant documents, including his claim that his name was reflected at Serial No. 500 in the initial gradation list for English subject, but was omitted in the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023.

¶36

Upon receipt of the petitioner’s representation along with a certified copy of this order, the respondent authorities shall objectively consider and decide the same in accordance with law. While doing so, the concerned authority shall specifically record reasons as to why the petitioner has not been placed at Serial No. 500 in the final promotion list dated 06.04.2023 and whether he was otherwise eligible and entitled for consideration in the said promotion process.

¶37

The entire exercise shall be completed and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation along with a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall also be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶38

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the inter se merit, seniority, or eligibility of the petitioner vis-à-vis

¶39

¶40

other candidates, and all issues on facts and law are left open to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules, circulars, and policy guidelines.

¶41

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶44

Yogesh

Charan Singh Churendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh Churendra 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.Saroj Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Kumar Baghel (Wrongly mention as Lokesh) Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Chitrakant Kurre

Vijay Yadav @ Vijju Vs Mohammad Nasim Ansari

A.K. Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Gopal Das Jangde