Hemant Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010341932022 2026:CGHC:31440

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 7892 of 2022

¶6

Hemant Kumar Nishad S/o. Tijau Ram Nishad, Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School, Pokhara, Block Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Block-3, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. District Education Officer, Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Adv.
For State	: Ms. Saumya Sharma, P.L.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

23.7.2026

¶18

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶19

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of

¶20

2

¶21

the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the gradation list of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) E-cadre prepared by the respondent no.4 as on 01.04.2022 for promotion to the post of Teacher/ Head Master (Primary School) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare the fresh gradation list of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) in order of merit by placing the petitioner above from the teachers who are juniors as per the selection list dated 14.06.2005.

¶23

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as per fresh gradation list, which will prepare in order of merit. The petitioner may also be grated the consequential relief, which he is entitled to get the same.

¶24

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.

¶25

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was

¶26

initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III pursuant to the order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar (Rajim) dated 14.6.2005 and in the posting order, name of petitioner appeared at S.No. 49. He further submits that according to the policy of State Government dated 1.7.2018, services of petitioner and other Assistant Teachers (Panchayat) were absorbed with the School Education Department. He contends that District Education Officer, Gariyaband published a gradation list of Assistant Teachers (L.B.) in the year 2022 wherein the name of petitioner appears ar S. No.

¶27

3

¶28

242 and said gradation list was prepared on the basis of Date of Birth (DOB) of the concerned employees which is per-se illegal according to the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1961’]. He further contends that petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation in this regard before District Education Officer, Gariyaband who in turn may be directed to resolve the discrepancy in the gradation list at the earliest.

¶29

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose.

¶30

4) Heard.

¶31

5) Rule 12(1)(a) of Rules of 1961 explicitly states that the seniority of persons directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective of the date of joining. In the present case, District Education Officer, Gariyaband has reckoned the inter-seniority of Assistant Teachers (L.B.) falling under its jurisdiction on the basis of Date of Birth in the impugned gradation list which is in violation to Rule 12(1)(a) of Rules of 1961.

¶32

6) At this juncture, this writ petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to prefer a detailed representation before District Education Officer, Gariyaband within period of 30 days ventilating his grievances. It is expected that the

¶33

4

¶34

authority concerned shall decide the claim of petitioner and resolve the discrepancy in the gradation list strictly in accordance with law by way of a speaking order keeping in mind the observation made herein-above, preferably within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of such representation.

¶35

7) With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed .

¶36

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶37

A j i n k y a

¶38

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.23 17:32:22 +0530

Hemant Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar Nishad 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Khelan Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bharti Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.p.dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Mahavir Moulds India Pvt. Ltd. Unit II Vs State of Chhattisgarh