Afr High Court
Case Details
1 / 70 2025:CGHC:29269-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 17.06.2025 Order passed on 01 .07. 2025 WPS No. 5217 of 2019 1 - P. Gilak Rao S/o Late P. Kistaiya Aged About 53 Years Head Master, Government Middle School Manjhiguda, District South Bastar Jagdalpur, R/o Wargis Colony, Gurugovind Singh Ward Gondwana, Bhawan, Road, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District South Bastar Jadalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakesh Khaparde S/o Roshan Lal Aged About 45 Years Head Master, Government Middle School Mardoom, District Bastar, R/o Village And Post Mardoom,tahsil Lohandiguda, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Shyam Singh Taram S/o Gwal Ram Taram Aged About 52 Years Head -Master, Government Middle School Pandripani, Block Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, R/o Village Jisakarra, Post Office And Block Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjay Thakur S/o Brij Lal Thakur, Head Master, Govt. High Primary School Bhelvopadar, District Kondagaon R/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, In Front Of District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Madan Kumar Sonewara S/o Swaroop Ram Sonewara Aged About 47 Years Head - Mastar, Government Middle School Badebendri, District Kondagaon, R/o Dnk Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 / 70 6 - Diwakar Prasad Dwivedi S/o Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 59 Years Head- Master Government High Primary School Orchha, District Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ratan Lal Baghel S/o Bali Ram Baghel Aged About 48 Years Head- Mastar Presently In- Charge Principal, Governement Higher Secondary School Pharsgaon, District Narayanpur, R/o Banglapara, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Nirmal Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ravishankar Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Head - Master Government Middle School Khalemurvend, Keshkal District Kondagaon, R/o Manjhipara, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 9 - Mohan Kumar Senapati S/o Late Mangapati Rao Senapati Aged About 58 Years Head-Master, Governent Middle School, Mg Ward, Kanker, District Naorth Bastar Kanker, R/o Near Shani Mandir, Mahurbandpara, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 10 - Hira Lal Sahu S/o Late Shriram Ji Sahu Aged About 61 Years Head - Master Government Middle School Kurrutoal, Block Charama, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 11 - Suresh Chandra Shrivastava S/o Late Rajeshwar Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 57 Years Head -Master Governme School Singarbhat, District North Bastar Kanker R/o Behind Durga Mandir, Kodabhat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 12 - Neelkanth Kumar Shardul S/o Sukh Das Shardul Aged About 55 Years Head - Master, Government Primary Schooldongripara,district Kondagaon, R./o C/o Geetanjali Stationary, Main Raod, Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 13 - Nirmal Kumar Shardul S/o Sukh Das Shardul Aged About 52 Years Head - Master Government Boys Higher Secondary, School, Kondagaon District Kondagaon R/o C/o Geetanjali, Stationary, Main Road, Kondagaon, District Kondgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 / 70 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -Iii ,1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Under Secretary School Education Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-05-2025 And 09-06-2025) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4447 of 2025 1 - Janak Ram Sahu S/o Vishram Singh Sahu Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Soram, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Sunil Kumar Mahawar S/o B.L. Mahawar Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government High School, Soridbhat, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Kumar Sen S/o Bisauha Ram Sen Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Thuha, Block- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Devendra Kumar Dadar S/o Nand Kumar Dadar Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Swami Atmanand Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Charra, Block- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Anant Kumar Sahu S/o Santuram Sahu Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Swami Atmanand Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Krishna Kumar Kanwar S/o Ganga Ram Kanwar Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Hasda No. 01, Block- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 7 - Hemant Drirhakar S/o G.R. Drirhakar Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 8 - Dayaram Sahu S/o Lt. Gaukaran Sahu Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhaismundi, Block- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 9 - Prahlad Kumar Dhruv S/o Gajpal Singh Dhruv Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Naari, Block- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 / 70 10 - Bharat Lal Ghritlahre S/o Lt. Sita Ram Ghritlahre Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Bhatbehra, Block- Simga, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 11 - Prem Singh Diwan S/o Sadanand Singh Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At P M Shri Sages, Bhaismundi, Block- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 12 - Siyaram Kurrey S/o Bisahuram Kurrey Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 13 - Dayman Singh Nag S/o Jayram Nag Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Hasda No.01, Block- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 14 - Hriday Ram Jurri S/o Ghurau Ram Jurri Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Aaraut Duban, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 15 - Mnrakhan Lal Tandan S/o Sukalu Ram Tandan Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Dhanapuri, Block- Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.) 16 - Tilochan Kumar Sahu S/o Khedu Ram Sahu Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At P M Shri English Medium Government School Of Excellence, Gurur, Block- Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.) 17 - Nand Kumar Mandavi S/o Puranik Ram Mandavi Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government High School, Block- Bhanpuri, District- Balod (C.G.) 18 - Dashrath Ram Sahu S/o Nohar Singh Sahu Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At P M Shri English Medium Government School Of Excellence, Gurur, Block- Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.) 19 - Devendra Kumar Gautam S/o Itwari Ram Gautam Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government High School, Surhi, Block- Narharpur, District- Kanker (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 / 70 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5 of 2025 1 - Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi S/o Shri Hari Prasad Tripathi Aged About 49 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Chindbahar, Block Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandra Prakash Dewangan S/o Late Mahadev Prasad Dewangan Aged About 58 Years Working As Lecture, Government Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Block Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - U Dhatmendra Patnaik S/o Late U.K.R. Patnaik Aged About 57 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Multiperpouse Higher Secondary School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
They further placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 2274 of 2024, (2022) SCC Online Chh. 654 and W.P.S. No. 3110 of 2015. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that their challenge to the Rules, 2019, is justified and necessary to uphold the principles of fairness, equality, and justice, and to protect their rights to promotion which have been unjustly curtailed by the impugned rules. 12) Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. Palash Agrawal, Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocates for respective petitioners appearing in second group jointly submits that this Hon’ble Court in the landmark judgment of Shravan Kumar Pradhan Vs. Union of India and others (WPS No. 2358/2024, decided on 26.07.2024) has categorically held that possession of a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree is an essential and mandatory qualification for 39 / 70 promotion to the post of Lecturer. It is an established principle laid down by this Court that since the post of Principal is substantially a promotional post predominantly filled from the Lecturer cadre, constituting approximately 65% of the total promotional posts, the same mandatory qualification requirement of possessing a B.Ed. degree must logically extend to promotion to the post of Principal as well. The Court, in the same judgment, has further declared the similar provisions under Schedule-IV, Serial No. 14, of the Rules, 2019 relating to the post of Lecturer, as unconstitutional and ultra vires. These findings underscore that the differentiation of State in applying qualification criteria, making possession of a B.Ed. degree mandatory only for direct recruitment candidates but exempting promotional candidates from the same for the post of Principal, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and wholly devoid of any rational nexus or reasonable basis, thereby violating the fundamental right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the impugned Rules flagrantly disregard the binding statutory framework prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which explicitly mandates the possession of a B.Ed. degree as a minimum qualification for teachers in High Schools. Given that 10% of Principal posts are filled by direct recruitment wherein the B.Ed. qualification is non-negotiable and an essential eligibility criterion, while the remaining 90% of posts are filled by promotion, with 65% posts filled by promotion of Lecturers (Educational and Technical cadre) and 25% by promotion of Head 40 / 70 Masters (Middle School), it is patently illogical, unjust, and legally impermissible to exclude the mandatory possession of a B.Ed. degree as a qualification for promotion to Principal. Such exclusion not only undermines the merit-based criteria and statutory mandates but also erodes the very standards of educational administration and excellence that the Regulations intend to uphold. The petitioners have been grievously prejudiced and unjustly deprived of their legitimate and rightful promotions due to the arbitrary decision of State to include and promote candidates who lack the essential B.Ed. qualification solely on the basis of seniority, which is contrary to the principles of merit and eligibility codified in the Constitution and statutory regulations. This practice violates not only Article 14 but also Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and mandates that promotions be governed by principles of fairness, merit, and fitness. Allowing candidates who do not meet the essential eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer, due to absence of a B.Ed. Degree, to be promoted to the superior and sensitive post of Principal is patently arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, adversely affecting the integrity of the educational service and the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Further, despite this Hon’ble Court having passed a clear and unequivocal stay order restraining the respondents from granting promotions to ineligible candidates, the respondents have willfully and contumaciously violated the order passed by this Court by issuing 41 / 70 promotion orders and permitting such candidates to join the post of Principal. This deliberate disobedience not only undermines the authority and sanctity of the judicial process but also causes irreparable prejudice to the petitioners, who are entitled to promotions in accordance with law. The continued application of the impugned Rules, which permit such illegal promotions, perpetuates discrimination, dilutes educational standards, and flouts statutory mandates. In view of the foregoing, the impugned provisions of the Rules, 2019, to the extent they allow promotion of candidates lacking the mandatory B.Ed. qualification, are liable to be declared unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires. The learned counsel for petitioners, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the said provisions null and void, quash all unauthorized promotion orders issued in violation of the stay order passed by this Court and applicable law, and issue appropriate directions restraining the respondents from further promoting candidates who do not possess the mandatory B.Ed. qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioners also seeks a direction to the State to strictly adhere to the qualifications mandated by the NCTE Regulations and the binding judgment of this Hon’ble Court, thereby ensuring promotions are granted only to candidates possessing the requisite B.Ed. qualification as a minimum criterion, thereby safeguarding merit, fairness, and constitutional guarantees in public employment. 13) Mr. Y. C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Mr. 42 / 70 Khulesh Sahu, Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Mr. Ankit Singh, Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Mr. Sameer Rigri, Mr. Anjay Mishra, Mr. Zakir Anam Shah, Mr. Vishal Chandrawanshi, Ms. Pooja Loniya, Ms. Meera Tiwari and Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocates for the respective petitioners appearing in third group submits that the petitioners, Lecturers duly appointed and promoted through the recognized service hierarchy, their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been gravely violated by the impugned provisions and actions under the Rules, 2019. The central grievance arises from the arbitrary and irrational classification of distinct posts, Lecturer (High/Higher Secondary School) and Head Master (Middle School), as equal feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Principal. This classification, devoid of any intelligible differentia and lacking a rational nexus to the objective of merit-based promotion, unjustly equates posts that differ substantially in qualification, recruitment process, responsibilities, and career trajectory. The rules have distorted the seniority-cum-merit principle by preparing separate feeder cadre lists, manipulating seniority reckoning by counting service from the date of Head Mastership instead of from the date of promotion to Lecturer, and permitting juniors to supersede seniors in promotional consideration. Such actions not only breach the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness but also contravene settled principles of service jurisprudence, legitimate expectation, and non- 43 / 70 retrogression. The implementation of these rules has resulted in the wrongful exclusion of eligible and senior Lecturers from the gradation list, particularly the one prepared after 27.05.2024, which further defies the binding precedent of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 502/2022, wherein the explanation to Rule 15(1) was declared ultra vires. In WPS No. 2220/2025, it is additionally pointed out that the action of State in permitting Non-B.Ed. candidates to be promoted to the post of Principal, despite B.Ed. being a mandatory qualification for Lecturers and for direct recruitment to the same post, is both arbitrary and in violation of NCTE regulations, thus infringing Articles 14 and 16 as well as statutory norms. The petitioners emphasize that this Hon’ble Court has already struck down similar provisions in the matter of Shrawan Kumar v. Union of India (WPS/2358/2024), and yet the respondents have continued to rely on identical rules and explanations, undermining judicial authority and perpetuating discrimination. The rushed and selective implementation of the flawed gradation lists and promotions, especially in the final phase of the careers of petitioners’, causes irreparable prejudice and irreversible consequences, forcing seniors to serve under their juniors in blatant disregard of merit, experience, and hierarchy. The impugned rules and resultant promotion orders are constitutionally infirm as they create a “class within a class” and unjustifiably favor a particular category without any objective or legal basis. The actions of the respondents, including the issuance of fresh gradation lists contrary 44 / 70 to prior judicial directions and the misapplication of eligibility norms, represent a systemic erosion of service rights and natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus pray that this Hon’ble Court invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to declare Entry 18 of Schedule II and Column 3 of Serial No. 14 of Schedule-IV of the 2019 Rules unconstitutional and ultra vires, quash the impugned gradation lists and promotion orders, restore the earlier legally compliant gradation list dated 27.05.2024, and direct the respondents to undertake the promotion process in strict compliance with constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and established service norms. 14) The learned State Counsel submits that the Rules, 2019 govern the conditions of service for both the Educational and Administrative cadres of the School Education Department. Rule 8 deals with eligibility for direct recruitment, whereas Rules 14 and 15 lay down the procedure and conditions for promotion. It is submitted that certain posts have been bifurcated into two compartments, Educational (E) and Tribal (T), with separate promotional hierarchies, sanctioned posts, and quotas. Following the merger of Tribal Welfare Department schools in 2015 and Local Body Schools in 2018, all school education in Chhattisgarh came under the unified School Education Department. Lecturer and Head Master (Middle School) belong to distinct cadres as per the schedules annexed to the 2019 Rules. Entry 22 of Schedule II indicates the sanctioned strength of Lecturers, while Entry 25 relates to Head 45 / 70 Masters. Column 8 of Entry 18 prescribes promotional quotas to the post of Principal i.e. 65% from Lecturers and 25% from Head Masters. These quotas are in proportion to their respective sanctioned strengths, and no quota of cadre has been curtailed. It is further submitted that while Lecturers and Head Masters are equal in pay scale and class, and both serve as feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Principal, they remain distinct cadres. Teachers are the feeder cadre for both Lecturer and Head Master posts. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the classification or quota fixation under Entry 18. Since both cadres are equal and have been assigned quotas in accordance with sanctioned strength, such classification is valid and permissible. The prescription of qualifications, post creation or abolition, promotional hierarchies, and quota fixation fall within the exclusive domain of the State. Promotion is not an enforceable right; only the right to be considered for promotion exists. A mere reduction in promotional opportunity does not violate any right. The learned State counsel further submits that it has the authority to unilaterally amend service rules and that no writ of mandamus can be issued compelling the State to frame rules in a particular way. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 does not extend to altering statutory rules. It is also submitted that the post of Principal is an administrative one, and the State has, in its wisdom, not prescribed B.Ed. as an essential qualification for promotion to the said post. There is no mandatory Act or Rule 46 / 70 requiring B.Ed. for this purpose. The Hon’ble Court has already adjudicated on similar issues in previous petitions and upheld the validity of Entry 18 of Schedule II of the 2019 Rules, including the classification, promotional quota, and qualification prescriptions. Additionally, the State has duly implemented the directions issued by the Court in WPS No. 502/2022, ensuring that the period served by a Lecturer as Head Master is counted towards qualifying service. 15) Since the intervention application filed by some of the interveners in support of respondent State is allowed by this Court and they were permitted to file return / reply in these matters, as such, considering aforesaid aspect, other interveners are also allowed to argue the matter. 16) The applicants/interveners, represented through various counsels including Mr. Alok Bakshi, Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Mr. Vinok K. Deshmukh, Mr. Amrito Das, Mr. N. Naha Roy, Mr. Jitendra Pali, Mr. N. K. Malviya, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Mr. Sudeep Verma, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners while supporting the submission made by learned State counsel and would submit that they are duly qualified and eligible candidates promoted to the post of School Principal pursuant to the Rules of 2019. The interveners includes both Head Masters (Middle School) and Lecturers, some under the 47 / 70 E-Cadre and others from the erstwhile Tribal Welfare or Panchayat cadre, who have been stagnating in service for over a decade and were finally promoted by the State Government vide order dated 30.04.2025 after due process, including convening of the DPC, in compliance with this directions of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions under the Rules of 2019, especially those pertaining to the ratio of feeder cadres and eligibility qualifications for the post of Principal. The grievance primarily revolves around the interpretation of the word “trained,” contending that only B.Ed.-qualified candidates should be deemed eligible, thereby seeking to exclude candidates holding D.Ed. or B.T.C. qualifications. Such a contention is wholly misplaced and contrary to settled service jurisprudence, as well as the plain language and intent of the Rules. It is further submitted that the Rules of 2019 consciously use the inclusive term “trained,” thereby encompassing multiple teaching qualifications, including B.Ed., D.Ed., and B.T.C. The post of Principal involves substantial administrative duties, and the teaching requirement is incidental; thus, disqualifying candidates solely on the ground of training mode is untenable. Historical rules and circulars, including those dated 22.11.1979 and 25.10.1987, recognized equivalence and exemptions for training qualifications, especially for candidates with long service and those above 50 years of age. The bifurcation of promotional quota, 65% from Lecturers and 25% from Head Masters, is a policy decision within the exclusive domain of the rule- 48 / 70 making authority. The petitioners, who are yet to attain eligibility or seniority, cannot seek to invalidate a scheme merely because it does not favour their anticipated career progression. Judicial precedents, including Division Bench decisions of this Hon’ble Court, have upheld such cadre structuring and promotional ratios as being within the legitimate legislative competence of the State under Article 309 of the Constitution. The interveners include teachers absorbed from the Departments of Tribal Welfare, Panchayat, and Urban Administration following inter-departmental mergers. These employees were governed by diverse rules prior to 2015 - 2018, none of which mandated B.Ed. exclusively. Upon merger, the 2019 Rules were enacted to harmonize qualifications, and the use of “trained” instead of “B.Ed.” was a considered legislative choice to prevent exclusion and ensure equity among similarly placed employees. The promotions granted on 30.04.2025 are the result of a DPC held after nearly a decade. Several candidates have already superannuated without a single promotion. The stay on the promotion order, obtained by petitioners based on a misconceived interpretation of the Rules, is causing irreparable harm to the interveners, many of whom are at the twilight of their careers. These promotions were made after a rigorous eligibility verification process and do not infringe upon any vested rights of the petitioners, who are junior and ineligible. A similar challenge to the 2019 Rules has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court in WP No. 7624/2024 (decided on 26.11.2024), upholding both the 49 / 70 qualifications and cadre bifurcation under the 2019 Rules. The present petitions, being a collateral attack on a settled matter, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata and lack of merit. In view of the foregoing, the interveners respectfully pray to
Arguments
4 - Ramesh Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri S P Upadhyay Aged About 56 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Asna, Block Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Sunil Singh S/o Rampal Singh Aged About 55 Years Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School Asna, Block Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Department Of Education And Literacy Government Of India Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3 - National Council For Teacher Education (Ncte) Through The Secretary/chairman, National Council Of Teacher Education (N.C.T.) G-7, Sector- 10, Dwarka Landmark Near Metro Station New Delhi – 110075 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 / 70 5 - The Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Council Of Education Research And Training (Scert) Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4077 of 2025 1 - Anand Kumar Trivedi S/o Bharat Bhusan Trivedi Aged About 59 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Posted As Head Master, R/o House No. 105/2, Harinagar, Sondka, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Bhramar Lal Bairagi S/o Dinbandhu Das Aged About 61 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Posted As Head Master, R/o 54(1), Ram Nagar, Lailunga, Ward No. 5, Lailunga District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Minketan Rana S/o Poorna Chandra Rana Aged About 61 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Posted As Head Master, R/o Kotri Dipa, Kusmura, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Nirakar Chaudhary S/o Balgovind Chaudhary Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Posted As Head Master, R/o Boir Dipa, Bayang, Kachar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9546 of 2019 1 - Roop Narayan Kushwaha S/o Late Laxman Ram Kushwaha Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Gopalpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 / 70 2 - Bal Krishan Sahu S/o Late Aliram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Madkapara, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/o Ramprasad Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Gangapur, Post And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Dharmendra Kumar S/o Bigan Ram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Bhediya, Post - Revati, Tahsil - Pratappur, Dostroct Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sarvesh Kumar Dubey S/o Krishna Murari Dubey Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kenara, Post - Kenara, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Kedar Nath Tiwari S/o Gaivinath Tiwari Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dhumadih, Post Govindpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Manoj Kumar Patel S/o Rampratap Patel Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Savitapur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Raju Kashipuri S/o Bigan Ram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dhondha, Post Bartikala, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Munnilal Gupta S/o Champalal Gupta Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Koteya, Post - Koteya, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Sheikh Murabbi S/o Abdul Rahim Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Sonpur, Post - Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Mohd. Fareed Ansari S/o Rahmat Ali Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Zoor, Post - Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Azizul Rahman Ansari S/o Ali Hasan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Zoor, Post Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Pran Singh S/o Late Dharamdas Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bhanvrahi, Post Gangohi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 / 70 14 - Sukhlal Gupta S/o Late Vanshropan Gupta Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Jarahi, Post - Jarahi, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Om Prakash Dwivedi S/o Gomati Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Dukhhui, Post Mangawa, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 16 - Dwarika Prasad Gupta S/o Rajpreet Sao Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Manpur, Post - Dharampur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 17 - Duryodhan Prasad Gupta S/o Rajpreet Sao Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Hariharpur, Post - Kenara, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 18 - Ratansai Keshari S/o Bajrang Ram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Madannagar, Post - Dharamur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 19 - Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Ishwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Darripara, Post - Darripara, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 20 - Prem Singh S/o Maheshwari Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kaskela, Post Salka Adhina, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 21 - Yugeshwar Prasad Gupta S/o Sanwaliya Prasad Gupta Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Salka (Adhina) Post - Salka Adhina, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 22 - Yogehs Kumar S/o Late Ramnarayan Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Patna, Post - Patna, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 23 - Premsai Singh S/o Ram Jivan Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Bundiya, Post Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 24 - Dinesh Kaushik S/o C.D. Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Nehru Park Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 25 - Brijlal Sonwani S/o Late Sukhnandan Ram Aged About 57 Years R/o Badkapara, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 9 / 70 26 - Abdulgani Ansari S/o Abdul Karim Ansari Aged About 57 Years R/o Shastri Ward, Kadari Manjil, Mayapur, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 27 - Shriram Pradhan S/o Odho Pradhan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 28 - Dadu Singh Markam S/o Late Shivnarayan Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Ranjana, Post Gharghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 29 - Ramdular Sahu S/o Late Nagina Prasad Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Khadgawan, Post Banja, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 30 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramshiromani Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dabaripara, Post Gangohi, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 31 - Satyanarayan Mishra S/o Late Bala Prasad Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khond, Pandavpara, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 32 - Lalka Prasad Singh S/o Ujit Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Chungadi, Post Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 33 - Santosh Kumar Thakur S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 34 - Maanuel Beck S/o Stephan Beck Aged About 59 Years R/o Ambikapur, Post And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 35 - Duleshwar Prasad Rajwade S/o Shyamlal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mongara, Post Shyamnagar, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 36 - Smt. Dilkumari Bara W/o Ram Prasad Aged About 49 Years R/o Ambikapur, Post And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 37 - Surendra Prasad Gupta S/o Kishunchand Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Janarnathpur, Post - Dharampur, Tahsil - Pratapur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 10 / 70 38 - Hiradhan Ram S/o Amarsai Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Singhara, Post Dharampur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 39 - Shivbachan Singh Karle S/o Late Ramdhan Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Kateya, Post Salka (Adhin), Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 40 - Babulal Rajwade S/o Gulsai Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Anuj Nagar, Post Latodi, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 41 - Mahavir Prasad Paikara S/o Charku Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Davana, Post Davana, Tahsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 42 - Poonam Chand Sharma S/o Late Bhagirath Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o Village - Salka Adhina, Post Salka Adhina, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 43 - Gangaram Yadav S/o Late Ramprasad Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Salka Adhina, Post - Salka Adhina, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 44 - Sanjay Kumar Bharti S/o Shivshankar Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Balgangadhar Tilak, Ambikapur, Post And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 45 - Dinesh Dwivedi S/o Tulsi Ram Dwivedi Aged About 48 Years R/o Mishra Gali, Ward No 3, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 46 - Mahesh Kumar Dohre S/o Nandram Dohre Aged About 47 Years R/o Jagir Signh Complex, Room No. 2 Gudaripara, Shivnandanpur, Post Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 47 - Harsh Narayan Sharma S/o Late Ambika Prasad Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Nimar Complex School Satpata, Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 / 70 2 - The Public Education Directorate Through Director, First Floor C Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2368 of 2025 1 - Purushottam Singh Yadu S/o Shri Himanchal Singh Yadu Aged About 60 Years R/o Singhori, Near Phe Office, Ward No. 10, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sunil Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Panjabi Para, Bemetara District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhedu Singh Thakur S/o Bharat Singh Thakur Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 50, Village Lalpur, Maro, Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Public Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1779 of 2025 1 - Anand Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Kodu Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Bhamtari R/o Village Angara Post Dahi District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Lalit Kumar Sinha S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Ram Sinha Aged About 60 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School Barna District - Dhamtari (C.G.) R/o Aama Talab Road Post Office Ward No. 24 Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Shekhan Lal Sahu S/o Sonu Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. Shiv Singh Verma Higher Secondary School Dhamtari R/o 3k 12 / 70 Ramsagar Para Near Samudayik Bhawan Ward No. 31 Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Manohar Lal Sahu S/o Vishram Singh Sahu Aged About 61 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School Devri Dhamtari R/o 127 Bazar Chowk Devpur Ward No. 08 Kandel Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Krishna Ram Markam S/o Nanau Ram Markam Aged About 51 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School Risgaon Nagari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) R/o Ward No. 5 Po Belarbazar Nawagaon Kas Nagari District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Mrs Rambha Parasbhadre W/o Salik Ram Parashbadre Aged About 60 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. High School Kanhera Block Saja District - Bemetara R/o Ganj Para Ward No. 09 Bemetara District - Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - Manharan Lal Mandavi S/o Shri Prem Singh Aged About 52 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School Saja District - Bemetara R/o Village Khamdih Keshtara Bemetara District - Bemetara (C.G.) 8 - Anil Kumar Tiwari S/o Ramji Lal Tiwari Aged About 60 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt.High School Saigona Saja District - Bemetara R/o Ward No. 08 Kobiya Bemetara District - Bemetara (C.G.) 9 - Sayyed Nazir Ali S/o Sayyed Hussain Ali Aged About 61 Years Currently Posted As Lecturer Govt.Swami Atmanand Hindi Medium Bemetara District - Bemetara R/o Masjid Gali Ward No. 21 Bemetara (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Directorate Of Public Education Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1718 of 2021 1 - Sanjay Kumar Vakhariya S/o Shri Harikishan Das Aged About 60 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Jaitpuri, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 13 / 70 2 - Awadh Ram Netam S/o Shri Rajbhan Singh Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Vijaynagar, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhag Singh Agrawal S/o Shri Kartil Ram Aged About 54 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Bendkura, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Kesho Ram Sahu S/o Shri Mehtar Ram Aged About 58 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kergaon, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Rukhmani Sharma D/o Shri Feru Prasad Aged About 59 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School B. Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - Satish Verma S/o Shri Amru Prasad Aged About 47 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Ghutkunavpara, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 7 - Krushn Kumar Diwan S/o Shri Prabhuram Aged About 53 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Amethi, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 8 - Shivmurti Sinha S/o Shri Hari Lal Aged About 58 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Chikhali, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 9 - Maksudan Ghewaria S/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 60 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Aamjhar, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 10 - Lalit Kumar Lahre S/o Shri Dayaram Aged About 51 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Marouda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 11 - Nand Kumar Verma S/o Shri Bhagat Ram Aged About 59 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Dakbangla Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 12 - Shankar Lala Pal S/o Shri Hari Ram Pal Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Purv Madhyamik School Kokdi Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 13 - Shiv Prasad Verma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Verma Aged About 60 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kosmi D , Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 14 / 70 14 - Nohar Singh Verma S/o Shri Khuman Singh Aged About 61 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Sohagpur, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 15 - Ayodhya Lal Yadaw S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Bhunjiyamuda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 16 - Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Shri Mangtu Ram Aged About 50 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Potiya, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 17 - Johat Ram Yadaw S/o Shri Motish Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kashabay, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 18 - Thanwar Ram Thakur S/o Shri Latel Ram, Aged About 59 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Dumarbahar, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 19 - Lalit Kumar Dhruw S/o Ghasiram Aged About 50 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Hathbay, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 20 - Tejesh Sharma S/o Shri Sharda Prasad Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Jhalkhamar, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 21 - Ramesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Aged About 50 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Chhindoula, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 22 - Kanhiya Singh Thakur S/o Shri Bhukhan Singh Aged About 60 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Khatti, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 23 - Ramawtar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Narayan Sharma Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Darripara, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 24 - Vishwanath Bhardwaj S/o Shri Thanuram Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Janjle Dhawawpur, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 25 - Brij Bihari Verma S/o Shri Bhulauram Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Paragaon, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 15 / 70 26 - Raj Kumar Markam S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Aged About 61 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Hasouda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 27 - Mohan Lal Chaudhari S/o Shri Ram Bhagat Aged About 54 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Tendubay, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 28 - Bhupendra Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Bhusan Singh Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Malgaon, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 29 - Manoj Kumar Kela S/o Shri Babulal Aged About 52 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Bhaisatara, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 30 - Smt. Ranjana Parihar W/o Shri Bhajan Singh Aged About 52 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School G. Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 31 - Motilal Sahu S/o Shri Ramji Sahu Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Tonhidabari, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 32 - Bharatlal Sahu S/o Shri Itwari Ram Sahu Aged About 54 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Dewari, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 33 - Balmukund Singh Thakur S/o Shri Jagmohan Singh Thakur Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Pond, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 34 - Pawan Kumar Verma S/o Shri Tejnath Verma Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Diwano, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 35 - Chowaram Dewangan S/o Shri Bisahu Ram Dewangan Aged About 55 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Nawapara, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 36 - Digambar Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Lekhram Yadu Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Nawapara, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 37 - Lekhnarayan Soni S/o Shri Hulasram Soni Aged About 44 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Khairjhiti, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 16 / 70 38 - Rajendra Kumar Verma S/o Brijlal Verma Aged About 54 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kamraj, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 39 - Girwarlal S/o Shri Ramadhar Dhruw Aged About 52 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Paktiya, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 40 - Mitthu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Ratanlal Sahu Aged About 55 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Dadurgaon Naya, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 41 - Lalit Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Mehtaru Ram Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Patharmohnda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 42 - Dauwa Ram Kumbhakar S/o Shri Kheduram Aged About 59 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Mohda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 43 - Manoj Kumar Mersha S/o Shri Medhulal Aged About 52 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kharta, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 44 - Krishan Mohan Patel S/o Shri Dulha Ram Aged About 54 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Bokramuda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 45 - Smt. Nargish Qureshi W/o Shri Gokul Prasad Aged About 51 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School English Mid. Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 46 - Pyare Lal Sahu S/o Shri Shayam Lal Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kosumbuda, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 47 - Laxmi Narayan Sharma S/o Shri J. P. Sharma Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Kumharpara Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 48 - Shiv Kumar Sarsiha S/o Shri Gaind Ram Aged About 58 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Mainpur-2, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 49 - Nand Kumar Veram S/o Shri Jageshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 54 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School Madanpur, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 17 / 70 50 - Rajkumar Sinha S/o Shri Thanwar Ram Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master (T) Cadre And Posted At Govt. Middle School B Gariyaband, Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, First Floor, C-Khand, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Block Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 438 of 2020 1 - Laxmi Prasad Bareth S/o Firturam Bareth Aged About 52 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Bhojpur, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Fatte Singh Rathiya S/o Ujit Singh Aged About 54 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Bansjor, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nankiram Baghel S/o Beniram Baghel Aged About 53 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Sonpur, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Himeshwar Sahu S/o J.R. Sahu Aged About 55 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Chikatwani, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bilkam Kujur S/o Bihanu Kujur Aged About 53 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Dhodhagaon, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 18 / 70 6 - Devlal Kurre S/o Ramprasad Kurre Aged About 52 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Rupunga, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Tarun Kumar Chandra S/o Late Jugla Ram Chandra Aged About 55 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Kudekela, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Mahettar Ram Rathiya S/o Late Shri Amar Sai Rathiya Aged About 53 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Kataipali, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Sindhu Sai Paikra S/o Jagarnath Sai Aged About 56 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Rajkot, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 10 - Nilambar Prasad Bisi S/o Late Shri Uddhav Ram Bisi Aged About 52 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Krondha, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 11 - Chhotelal Khanna S/o Shri Sudharam Khanna Aged About 55 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Jabga, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 12 - Kanhaiya S/o Bharat Singh Thakur Aged About 59 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Darridih, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 13 - Nilambar Sao S/o D.R. Sao Aged About 59 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Ongana, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 14 - Vijay Singh S/o Devnarayan Singh Aged About 59 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Lipti, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 15 - Budhnath Ram S/o Late Mahesh Baraik Aged About 57 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Talgaon, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 16 - Himit Kumar Rathiya S/o Maniram Rathiya Aged About 51 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Pakhnakot, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 17 - Manohar Sai S/o Dharam Singh Aged About 55 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Jogiyapara, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 19 / 70 18 - Sabal Sai S/o Shri Mangna Sai Aged About 60 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Rajkot, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 19 - Devnath Aged About 57 Years, Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Jamarga, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 20 - Smt. Asha Kaushik W/o Dadan Kumar Kaushik Aged About 52 Years Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Dugrupara, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1302 of 2025 1 - Komal Prashad Sahu S/o Shri Amar Nath Sahu Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As A Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School, Shivnarayan, Block Navagarh, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Devprashad Sahu Aged About 58 Years Presently Working As A Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School, Shivrinarayan, Block Navagarh, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Union Of India Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development (M.H.Rd.), Department Of Education And Literacy Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 20 / 70 3 - National Counsel For Teacher Education (Ncte) Through The Secretary/chairman, National Counsel For Teacher Education (Ncte), G-7, Sector 10, Dwarika, Landmark- Near Metro Station New Delhi 110075 4 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan, Block-3, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Council Of Education Research And Training (Scert) Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 561 of 2025 1 - Kuldeep Prakash Singh Chouhan S/o Devnand Singh Chouhan Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) T- Cadre At Government Higher Secondary School, Kuwakonda, Block Kuwakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - Rakesh Kumar Mishra S/o K.P. Mishra Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) T- Cadre At Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Gidam, Block Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Union Of India Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Department Of Education And Literacy Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3 - National Council For Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) Through The Secretary/ Chairman, National Council For Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.), G-7, Sector- 10, Dwarka, Landmark- Near Metro Station, New Delhi- 110075 4 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Block-3, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Council Of Education Research And Training (S.C.E.R.T) Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 21 / 70 WPS No. 1541 of 2020 1 - Duje Ram Khare S/o Late Baratram Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Atpo Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -Iii, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2220 of 2025 1 - Anurag Trivedi S/o Late Karuna Shankar Trivedi Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As District Mission Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Permanent Posting As Lecturer Sanskrit, Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Union Of India Through - The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Department Of Education And Literacy Government Of India Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3 - National Council For Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) Through - The Secretary / Chairman, National Council Of Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.), G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka Landmark, Near Metro Station, New Delhi – 110075 22 / 70 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 6 - State Council Of Education Research And Training (S.C.E.R.T.) Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Y. C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Prateek Sharma, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Mr. Ishan Verma along with Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley and Mr. G. P. Mathur appearing on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Palash Agrawal, Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Mr. Akash Pandey, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Mr. Ankit Singh, Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Mr. Sameer Rigri, Mr. Anjay Vishal Zakir Anam Shah, Mishra, Chandrawanshi, Ms. Pooja Loniya, Ms. Meera Tiwari and Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocates Mr. Mr. For State : Mr. Y. S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Union of India For Respondent / Intervenors : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Mr. N. K. Malviya, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Mr. Vinok K. Deshmukh, Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Mr. Amrito Das, Mr. Sudeep Verma, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Mr. Alok Bakshi, Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Mr. N. Naha Roy, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocates Hon'ble Smt. Rajni Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V ORDER Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 1) In all the present writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the constitutional validity of Serial No. 18 of Schedule II and Serial No. 23 / 70 9 of Schedule IV of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 2019”). In certain writ petitions, the petitioners have further sought a modification of Rule 15 of Schedule II, with a prayer to extend service benefits to Lecturers who have previously discharged duties in the capacity of Head Master. While the principal challenge in these petitions pertains to the vires of the aforementioned entries, namely, Serial No. 18 of Schedule II and Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV, of the 2019 Rules, the petitioners have also, in addition thereto, prayed for the issuance of writs in the nature of mandamus seeking diverse ancillary reliefs. 2) For the purpose of effective adjudication, the present writ petitions were consolidated and grouped together, based on the similarity of the reliefs sought therein. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that petitions raising identical issues, particularly those challenging the vires of the relevant Rules, may be heard and decided collectively. Accordingly, three groups of petitions were constituted. 3) The first group comprises W.P.S. No. 5217 of 2019, W.P.S. No. 9546 of 2019, W.P.S. No. 438 of 2020, W.P.S. No. 1541 of 2020, and W.P.S. No. 1718 of 2021. The primary relief sought in W.P.S. No. 5217 of 2019 was taken as the representative issue for consideration within this group, which is as follows: 24 / 70 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the condition at serial No.18 of Schedule-II of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 is being ultra- vires to the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to prescribe the 75% for promotion on the post of Principal from Head-Master/ Lecturer equally, as was earlier prescribed as per serial No.3 of Schedule-II of Rules, 2011; the 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to prepare consolidated Seniority-List/Gradation-List of Head- Master (Post-Graduate) and Lecturer of T- cadre, by this further consider for promotion on the post of Principal; 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to incorporate the condition as Trained equally for Lecturers also as prescribed for Head-Master (Trained) at serial No.18 (3) of the Schedule-II of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019; 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 10.6 Quash and set aside the order no. F 2 - 65/2024/20-3 dated 30.04.2025 and the order no. F1 - 108/2024/20-3 dated 30.04.2025 issued by the Under-secretary 25 / 70 department of School Education Government of Chhattisgarh.” 4) Second group contains W.P.S. No. 5 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 561 of 2025 and W.P.S. No. 1302 of 2025. The primary relief sought in W.P.S. No. 5 of 2025 was taken as the representative issue for consideration within this group, which is as follows : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and declare column 3 of serial No. 9 of the schedule-IV enacted under the rules 14 and 15 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Educational and Administrative cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 as ultra vires and unconstitutional or in alternate to declare that B.Ed. is necessary qualification for 65% posts of principal to be filled up through promotion from the post of Lecturer. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondents to exclude the names of candidates who have not completed B.Ed. Training from promotion to the post of principal. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2025, No. F-1-108/2024/20-4 (T-Cadre) and order dated 30.04.2025, No. (E-Cadre) F-2-65/2024/20-Three (Annexure P/12) issued by the respondent no. 1, in the interest of justice.” 5) Third group contains W.P.S. No. 1779 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 2220 of 26 / 70 2025, W.P.S. No. 2368 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 4077 of 2025 and W.P.S. No. 4447 of 2025. The primary relief sought in W.P.S. No. 1779 of 2025 was taken as the representative issue for consideration within this group, which is as follows : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly declare Entry 18 of Schedule II and Entry 9 of Schedule IV as ultra vires as being violative of Article 14 and 16. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned gradation list published on 29.10.2024 by Respondent No 02. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to not to consider the Head Master (Middle School) as eligible for the purposes of promotion to the post of Principal. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondent authorities to include the name of Lecturers, who have previously worked in the post of Head Master (Middle School) to the gradation list of Head Masters and gradation list of Lecturers by giving them seniority from the date of their joining the post of Head Master (Middle School). 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the cost of petition. 10.6 Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6) Upon perusal of the aforesaid petition, it is evident that the challenge is directed against Serial No. 18 of Schedule–II and 27 / 70 Serial No. 9 of Schedule–IV of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. For ready reference, Serial No. 18 of Schedule–II is reproduced below: Schedule – II Sr. Name of Total Number Percentage of the number of Remarks No. Service / of Duty Posts duty posts to be filled in Post E T By direct By By transfer / recruitm Promoti deputation ent [see on [see fo persons rule 6 (1) rule 6 from other (a)] (1)(b)] services [see rule 6 (1)(c)] 18. Principal 2591 1898 10% 90% - The emergent vacancies as on 1st January every year shall bifurcated follows; be as (1) 10% posts shall be direct filled recruitment by through limited examination of the lecturers working Government schools/lecturers working panchayat/in with lecturer working in urban body. (2) 65% posts shall be filled by promotion of the lecturers, in which 70% posts shall be for lecturers of E-cadre and 30% posts for lecturers E (L.B.) cadre. sufficient number eligible If of candidates are not available in feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled promotion by of E(LB) cadre and vice- versa. 28 / 70 (3) 25% of the posts shall be filled by promotion of Head Master Middle School (Trained graduate) Post of which 70% posts shall be filled from Head Master Middle School (Trained Post graduate) of E-cadre and 30% posts shall be filled from E (L.B.) cadre. If sufficient number eligible of candidates are not available in feeding cadre in the E-cadre, the posts shall be filled promotion by of E(L.B.) cadre and vice-versa. Note: Posts of the T/T (L.B.) cadre shall also be filled as per procedure described in point (1), (2) and (3) above. 7) For ready reference, Serial No. 9 of Schedule – IV is reproduced below: Schedule – IV Sr. No. Name of the service or Minimum Name of service or Member of post from which experience post on which Departmental promotion is to be made period for promotion is to be Promotion Commitee eligibility for the done post 9. Lecturer / Head 05 years Principal 1) Chairman, Public Master (Middle Teaching School) (Trained experience Post Graduate) Service Commission or member nominated by him - Chairman (2) Secretary, School Education Department - Member (3) Director, Public Instruction - Member (4) Deputy Secretary / Under Secretary, School Education -Member Secretary 29 / 70 • Facts of the case in the First Group containing W.P.S. Nos. 5217/2019, 9546/2019, 438/2020, 1541/2020 and 1718/2021 : 8) Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that all petitioners are serving as Head Masters (Post-Graduate and Trained) in Middle Schools across different districts of Chhattisgarh. They were appointed/promoted under the Chhattisgarh Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department Educational Cadre (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2011. Under the 2011 Rules, Head Masters and Lecturers were equally eligible (based on seniority and service length) for promotion to the post of Principal/Vice-Principal. Provisions under 2011 Rules includes : * 75% of Principal/Vice-Principal posts were to be filled by promotion, with rough parity (approx. 37.5% each) between Lecturers and Head Masters. * 25% of posts were to be filled through direct recruitment/departmental exams. Promotions were based on a combined seniority list of Lecturers and Head Masters (T-cadre), applied in 2011 and 2018. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 was introduced which drastically altered the promotional structure which is enumerated as follows : * Head Masters' quota reduced to 25%, with only 70% of that (17.5%) applicable to the petitioners. * Lecturers’ quota increased to 65%. * Separate seniority lists introduced for Lecturers and Head Masters. 30 / 70 * "Trained" qualification made mandatory only for Head Masters, not for Lecturers. On 05.03.2019, a Government Order transferred the administrative control of schools from the Tribal Welfare Department to the School Education Department. Clause 9 of the order assured that T-cadre employees would retain their service conditions under the 2011 Rules despite the transfer. Main grievances of petitioners of these petitions are drastic reduction in their promotional quota (from ~37.5% to 17.5%) is unjust and discriminatory, juniors from the Lecturer cadre are being promoted ahead of them due to segregated seniority lists, requirement of being "Trained" imposed only on Head Masters is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 (Right to Equality and Equal Opportunity) and no records of Head Masters were called for during the 2020 promotion exercise, effectively excluding them. The 2019 Rules are ultra vires, especially Schedule II, Sr. No. 18, and seek reinstatement of equal promotional opportunities as per 2011 Rules. • Facts of the case in the Second Group containing W.P.S. Nos. 5/2025, 561/2025 and 1302 of 2025 : 9) Some petitioners belong to the E-Cadre and while some others belong to the T-Cadre. Their services were absorbed into the School Education Department post-2018 and governed by the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Rules, 2019. All petitioners hold the B.Ed. degree, which is the mandatory and minimum qualification for direct 31 / 70 recruitment as Lecturer and promotion to the post of Principal. Their names appear in the seniority lists dated 01.04.2024 (or 01.04.2023 in one case). The seniority lists include several Lecturers who do not hold B.Ed. qualifications but possess lesser qualifications such as D.Ed., D.El.Ed., B.T.I., etc., and such candidates are placed above the petitioners based purely on seniority. The post of Principal is filled as follows: * 10% by direct recruitment (Departmental Limited Examination), where B.Ed. is mandatory. * 90% by promotion, which includes: 1. 65% from Lecturers (E & T Cadre). 2. 25% from Head Masters (Middle School). Since promotion to Principal is largely from Lecturer cadre, the B.Ed. qualification is necessarily mandatory for promotion to Principal. Despite holding B.Ed., the petitioners were overlooked for promotion. Candidates without B.Ed. degrees were considered based on seniority alone. Vide letter dated 04.07.2024, the Directorate sought Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for Lecturers in certain serial number ranges, excluding petitioners while including non-B.Ed. Holders. Regulation 4(b) of NCTE Regulations, 2014 mandates B.Ed. as the minimum qualification for promotion to Higher Secondary teaching posts. The National Education Policy, 2020 and the Samagra Shiksha Scheme require adherence to NCTE-prescribed qualifications for recruitment and promotion of teachers and Principals, emphasizing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The post of Principal is both administrative 32 / 70 and teaching, requiring at least one teaching period daily, as per NCERT Bye-laws, 2018. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Column 3 of Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Rules, 2019, which permits promotion of non-B.Ed. candidates. This Court has already struck down a similar provision (Column 3 of Serial No. 14 of Schedule-IV) in the Shravan Kumar Pradhan case as unconstitutional and ultra vires. Despite Court’s orders restraining promotions, respondent authorities allegedly allowed promotions and joining of candidates, violating Court directives. Several writ petitions by similarly situated candidates are pending before the Hon’ble Court. • Facts of the case in the Third Group containing W.P.S. Nos. 1779/2025, 2220/2025, 2368/2025, 4077/2025 and 4447 of 2025 : 10) Petitioners are working as Lecturers or Head Masters (Middle School) in various Government Schools under the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. They were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers under applicable recruitment rules and subsequently promoted to the post of Lecturer. They possess clean service records and have been promoted based on merit, seniority, and as per the hierarchical norms. On 05.03.2019, the State notified the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Rules, 2019 under Article 309 of the Constitution. The rules govern recruitment to the post of Principal, which is the next stage in the promotional hierarchy. Schedule II of the Rules states: 33 / 70 * 10% of Principal posts to be filled through direct recruitment, * 90% through promotion which is further bifurcated as follows : 1. 65% from Lecturers 2. 25% from Head Masters (Middle School) The petitioners challenge the classification of Head Masters (Middle School) and Lecturers as equally eligible feeder cadres for promotion to Principal, particularly under Rule 6, Rule 14, Rule 15, and Schedule IV, Serial No. 9 of the 2019 Rules. Equation of distinct posts violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as Lecturers possess higher academic qualifications (e.g., B.Ed.), and their role involves subject specialization and higher teaching responsibilities. A gradation list dated 27.05.2024 included both Lecturers and Head Masters (Middle School) as eligible for promotion based on their past service. However, a revised list dated 29.10.2024 excluded Lecturers (including many petitioners), stating that they now form a separate cadre. This bifurcation into two separate feeder lists (Lecturers and Head Masters) has allegedly undermined accrued seniority, allowed junior Head Masters to overtake senior Lecturers, and created a scenario where career progression is reversed or retarded for those who accepted promotion to Lecturer. Specific grievance raised about inclusion of non-B.Ed. candidates in promotion lists, violating NCTE Regulations, 2014, and NEP 2020, which mandate B.Ed. as a minimum qualification. The action of Deputy Director DPI's in calling ACRs of non-qualified candidates and excluding qualified 34 / 70 ones is also challenged. The State has begun implementing promotions under the challenged framework, orders and proposals for promotions were issued between September 2024 and April 2025. There is a risk of irreversible prejudice to petitioners’ career prospects, especially for those nearing retirement. 11) Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Ishan Verma along with Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley and Mr. G. P. Mathur appearing on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners appearing in first group jointly submits that the petitioners are fully qualified, postgraduate, and trained Head Masters, who were initially governed by the Chhattisgarh Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department, Educational Cadre (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2011 (“Rules, 2011”). These Rules, 2011, clearly provided a well-structured and equitable promotional framework, whereby 75% of the posts of Principal and Principal were to be filled by promotion from among Lecturers and Head Masters, with an equal quota allotted to each cadre. Pursuant to these rules, the petitioners were included in a consolidated seniority list along with Lecturers and have benefitted from promotion opportunities in the years 2011 and 2018. This consolidated gradation list and parity in promotion quotas ensured that both cadres i.e. Lecturers and Head Masters were treated on an equal footing with respect to promotion prospects to the post of Principal. However, the State Government, by promulgating the Chhattisgarh 35 / 70 School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (“Rules, 2019”), radically altered this promotional framework to the detriment of the petitioners. Under the new Rules, 2019, the quota for promotion from the cadre of Head Masters was drastically reduced from 50% to only 25%, with further bifurcation restricting the effective share of the petitioners’ category to merely 70% of that 25%, i.e., approximately 17.5%. Meanwhile, the quota for Lecturers was increased from 50% to 65%, thereby creating an unbalanced and discriminatory promotional scheme. Such bifurcation and quota allocation have the inevitable effect of curtailing the promotion prospects of the petitioners, who are senior and experienced postgraduates, by allowing juniors from the Lecturer cadre to be promoted ahead of them. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that this discrimination is compounded by the fact that the Rules, 2019, introduced a discriminatory and arbitrary qualification requirement, wherein only the Head Masters were required to be “Trained,” while no such requirement was imposed on Lecturers. This singular imposition of a “Trained” qualification on Head Masters violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by creating an unreasonable classification without any rational basis. Such classification is manifestly arbitrary and denies equal opportunity to the petitioners for promotion. Furthermore, the Rules, 2019, have resulted in separate gradation and seniority lists for Head Masters and Lecturers, whereas the earlier regime under 36 / 70 the Rules, 2011, had a consolidated seniority list. This bifurcation results in a blatant anomaly where juniors from the Lecturer cadre supersede senior Head Masters in promotion considerations, thereby violating principles of natural justice, legitimate expectation, and settled service jurisprudence. It is further submitted that despite the merger of various cadres including those governed by the Tribal Department, Panchayat and Local Bodies, and the School Education Department, the State Government, vide Government Order dated 05.03.2019, expressly assured that the T- cadre employees would continue to be governed by the earlier Rules, 2011, thereby preserving their service conditions and promotional rights. However, the enforcement and application of the Rules, 2019, blatantly disregard this assurance and have adversely affected the petitioners’ legitimate rights. It is further submits that the omission of the post of Vice Principal in Schedule I of the Rules, 2019, which was present in the earlier Rules, 2011, and the inconsistent appointment authorities for the two cadres, contribute to the confusion and discriminatory treatment faced by the petitioners. The petitioner’s cadre, i.e., Head Masters, possess significant service experience, often exceeding that of the Lecturers, yet the rules fail to recognize this disparity and instead place the cadres on an unequal footing, severely diminishing the promotion opportunities for the petitioners. In addition to the quota reduction and discriminatory training requirement, the Rules, 2019, also reduce the requisite experience from ten years to five years, 37 / 70 further distorting the promotional prospects and adversely affecting future prospects of the petitioners. The inclusion of other categories such as Shiksha Karmi into the same cadre further congests the promotional channel, exacerbating the difficulty for Head Masters to secure timely promotion. These changes brought about by the Rules, 2019, are arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional as they violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The classification made by the State through the Rules, 2019, lacks any reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved, making the Rules arbitrary and liable to be struck down. The bifurcation and quota restrictions amount to unreasonable classification creating class within class, which is impermissible. The petitioners therefore earnestly pray that this Court may pleased to declare the provisions of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, particularly the provisions relating to promotion quota and seniority of Head Masters, as arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently ultra vires, direct that the petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of Principal on the basis of the earlier Rules, 2011, which provided equitable and just promotional avenues and further direct the respondents to merge the seniority lists of Head Masters and Lecturers as was done under the earlier Rules and to ensure promotions are made in 38 / 70 a fair, just, and nondiscriminatory manner without denying the petitioners their legitimate rights. The learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases such as Union of India v. K.C. Vasanth Kumar, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 90, Jagdish Prasad Verma v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 335, Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 416, Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, reported in (1975) 3 SCC 76 and others that emphasize the principles of non- arbitrariness, equality in service conditions, and protection of legitimate expectations of public servants in promotion matters.
Decision
dismiss the writ petition as misconceived, speculative, and lacking in locus. 17) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents appended along with these writ petition with utmost circumspection. 18) A bare perusal of the relevant columns in each petition reveals that the vires under challenge primarily relate to Entry 18 of Schedule II and Column 3 of Entry No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Rules, 2019, enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the said Rules. The constitutional validity of these provisions has been questioned on the grounds that they allegedly violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The principal contention in these challenges pertains to the bifurcation of promotional posts between the E and T cadres, with the petitioners asserting that equal promotional opportunities are not being afforded to these cadres. Specifically, it is contended that the maximum number of promotional posts for the position of Principal is allotted to Lecturers of the E cadre, while Head Masters and Lecturers of other cadres are deprived of equivalent promotional prospects. An examination of Schedule II makes it evident that 90% of the posts are to be filled by promotion, with a distribution of posts allocated to each cadre. According to the 50 / 70 petitioners, all eligible candidates seeking promotion should be granted equal opportunity. Currently, the number of vacant promotional posts for the position of Principal stands at 2,591 for the E cadre and 1,898 for the T cadre. This data clearly indicates that promotional posts available to the T cadre are considerably fewer than those for the E cadre. Consequently, to ensure equitable distribution of promotional opportunities, the State, exercising its discretion, has bifurcated these posts to provide appropriate promotional avenues to all eligible Lecturers. Another aspect challenged by some petitioners concerns the term “Trained Graduate.” The petitioners argue that while appointment as Lecturers, the candidate requires possession of a B.Ed. degree, Head Masters who have been promoted from the post of UDT teachers do not possess such a qualification, therefore, for promotion to the post of Principal, a B.Ed. degree should be an essential qualification, and Head Masters or Lecturers lacking this degree should be deemed ineligible for such promotion. A third point of contention relates to the minimum experience criterion. The Rules require a minimum of five years of teaching experience in a trained postgraduate Lecturer or Head Master capacity to be eligible for promotion. Some petitioners contend that fixing this five- year experience requirement disproportionately favors junior candidates, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is relevant to note that previously, multiple cadres existed separately, including teachers from Local Bodies, the Tribal 51 / 70 Department, and the Educational Department. The State subsequently decided to consolidate all teachers into a single cadre under the School Education Department. Consequently, the Promotional Rules of 2011 required amendment to appropriately allocate promotional opportunities among the various cadres. This necessity led to the framing of the 2019 Rules. These Rules, based on the total number of vacant posts, were designed to ensure proper representation of all cadres. Given that the majority of teachers are now absorbed under the School Education Department, the number of promotional posts has been bifurcated between the E and T cadres to reflect the composition of the teaching workforce. The petitioners are also challenging the gradation list prepared for headmasters and teachers from different cadres. It is argued that by creating separate gradation lists, the respondent - State is unnecessarily complicating the promotion process. Instead, there should be a single unified gradation list. If such a consolidated list were prepared, most of the headmasters with significantly greater experience would be prioritized, with teachers having lesser experience ranked below them accordingly. 19) From the aforementioned Rules and the quotas established for the post of Principal, it is clear that no quota allocated to any cadre has been curtailed. Lecturers and Headmasters are placed in equal pay scales and classes, and both serve as feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Principal. There is no evidence to suggest that the State has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in the classification or 52 / 70 fixation of quotas under Entry 18. Regarding the qualification criteria, while the requirement states “Trained,” it cannot be construed that only B.Ed. degree holders are eligible for promotion to the post of Principal. Teachers promoted on the basis of D.Ed., D.El.Ed., B.T.I. and similar qualifications were previously elevated to the post of Lecturer within their respective cadres. Having been absorbed accordingly, they cannot now be denied promotion solely because they do not hold a B.Ed. degree. To do so would constitute discrimination against Lecturers and Headmasters originating from other cadres who lack a B.Ed. qualification. The absorption of Teachers and Lecturers necessitated the formulation of a new balancing rule to ensure equal opportunities for all eligible candidates. The 2019 Rules clearly indicate that the promotion rules apply to both Educational and Administrative Services. Headmasters, who possess substantial administrative experience, cannot be denied promotion to the post of Principal; likewise, Lecturers cannot be denied promotion merely due to a lack of administrative experience. Since both educational and administrative competencies are essential, the State has reasonably formulated these rules to balance and accommodate these requirements. 20) At this stage, it is appropriate to note that these rules have been repeatedly challenged before this Court, each time disputing various aspects of the matter. In some petitions, the grievances raised were presented in a disguised manner. All such writ petitions 53 / 70 have been dismissed, with only one petition eliciting certain observations. 21) To declare any rule as ultra vires, the party challenging the rule must clearly specify the grounds and circumstances under which the rule is alleged to be unconstitutional or ultra vires. Mere dissatisfaction arising from denial of promotion by some petitioners cannot constitute a valid basis for declaring a rule ultra vires. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that to declare any rule ultra vires, certain conditions must be satisfied, which are as follows: 1. Prima Facie Grounds: Assess if there is a strong prima facie case questioning the validity (vires) of the provision. 2. Timing of Challenge: Check if the challenge is made promptly after the statute or provision was introduced or if there is an undue delay. 3. Nexus of Grounds: Verify if the grounds of challenge are factually connected and relevant to the provision in question. 4. Public Interest: Consider the extent of public interest involved in allowing or preventing the operation of the provision. 5. Financial Implications: Evaluate the financial impact on the State and the alleged harm to the challenger. 6. Necessity of Interim Relief: Decide if stopping the provision’s operation during litigation is justified in the larger public interest. 7. Non-Exhaustive Nature: The above are basic considerations; courts should 54 / 70 also examine other relevant factors on similar lines. 8. Expeditious Disposal: Writ petitions challenging statutes should be disposed of quickly and within a fixed timeframe to provide legal clarity. 22) A statute must be interpreted in a manner that renders it effective and workable, in accordance with the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, that it is better for a thing to have effect than to be void. Accordingly, there is a presumption that the Legislature acts within its constitutional limits. The burden of proving that a statute falls outside the Legislature’s competence, or that it violates other constitutional mandates, such as those concerning fundamental rights, rests upon the person challenging its validity. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 12th Edition, p. 592.) 23) It is a well-settled principle of law that a statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature is not to be declared unconstitutional lightly. The Court must be satisfied, beyond any doubt, that the violation of constitutional provisions is so manifest and glaring that the impugned legislative provision cannot be sustained. 24) The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others (Ministry of Women and Child Development Secretary and others), reported in (2017) 9 SCC 1 held that legislation can be struck down if it is manifestly arbitrary and manifest arbitrariness is the ground to 55 / 70 negate legislation as well under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed by their Lordships as under: - “101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India8 stated that it was settled law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.” 25) In a recent decision, Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 813, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review is a potent safeguard against the unconstitutional exercise of power by the Legislature and the Executive. The Court observed as follows: - “68. It could thus be seen that the role of the judiciary is to ensure that the 56 / 70 aforesaid two organs of the State i.e. the Legislature and Executive function within the constitutional limits. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The role of this Court is limited to examine as to whether the Legislature or the Executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution. However, while doing so, the court must remain within its self- imposed limits.” 26) Subsequently, in Dr. Jaya Thakur (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court relying upon their earlier judgment in the matter of Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and others, reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59, and reviewing their earlier decisions, speaking through B.R. Gavai, J., have held that the statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly, and observed as under: - “70. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly. To do so, the Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under challenge cannot stand. It has been held that unless there is flagrant violation of the constitutional provisions, the law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared bad. 71. It has been the consistent view of this Court that legislative enactment can 57 / 70 be struck down only on two grounds. Firstly, that the appropriate legislature does not have the competence to make the law; and secondly, that it takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. It has been held that no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or the other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. It has been held that Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. 72. It has been held by this Court that there is one and only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature or a provision in the Act to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt. It has further been held that if two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former view must always be preferred. It has been held that the Court must make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if that requires giving a strained construction or narrowing down its scope. 73. It has consistently been held that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, and a law will not be declared unconstitutional unless the 58 / 70 case is so clear as to be free from doubt. It has been held that if the law which is passed is within the scope of the power conferred on a legislature and violates no restrictions on that power, the law must be upheld whatever a court may think of it. 74. It could thus be seen that the challenge to the legislative Act would be sustainable only if it is established that the legislature concerned had no legislative competence to enact on the subject it has enacted. The other ground on which the validity can be challenged is that such an enactment is in contravention of any of the fundamental rights stipulated in Part III of the Constitution or any other provision of the Constitution. Another ground as could be culled out from the recent judgments of this Court is that the validity of the legislative act can be challenged on the ground of manifest arbitrariness. However, while doing so, it will have to be remembered that the presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment.” 27) In the matter of Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti and another, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 65, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. B.R. Gavai, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, held in paragraphs 27 & 28 of the report as under: - 59 / 70 “27. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. Though it may also be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness, such unreasonableness should not be in the sense of not being reasonable, but should be in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. 28. It has further been held by this Court in the said case that for challenging the subordinate legislation on the ground of arbitrariness, it can only be done when it is found that it is not in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. It has further been held that it cannot be done merely on the ground that it is not reasonable or that it has not taken into account relevant circumstances which the Court considers relevant.” 28) In PGF Limited and Others v. Union of India and Another, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 50, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines and identified precautions to be observed whenever the vires of a statutory provision is challenged before the Court. In paragraph 37 of the judgment, the Court cautioned as follows: “37. The Court can, in the first instance, examine whether there is a prima facie strong ground made out in order to 60 / 70 examine the vires of the provisions raised in the writ petition. The Court can also note whether such challenge is made at the earliest point of time when the statute came to be introduced or any provision was brought into the statute book or any long time-gap exists as between the date of the enactment and the date when the challenge is made. It should also be noted as to whether the grounds of challenge based on the facts pleaded and the implication of the provision really has any nexus apart from the grounds of challenge made. With reference to those relevant provisions, the Court should be conscious of the position as to the extent of public interest involved when the provision operates the field as against the prevention of such operation. The Court should also examine the extent of financial implications by virtue of the operation of the provision vis-a-vis the State and alleged extent of sufferance by the person who seeks to challenge based on the alleged invalidity of the provision with particular reference to the vires made. Even if the writ court is of the view that the challenge raised requires to be considered, then again it will have to be examined, while entertaining the challenge raised for consideration, whether it calls for prevention of the operation of the provision in the larger interest of the public. We have only attempted to set out some of the basic considerations to be borne in mind by the writ court and the same is not exhaustive. In other words, the writ court should examine such other grounds on the above lines for consideration while considering a 61 / 70 challenge on the ground of vires to a statute or the provision of law made before it for the purpose of entertaining the same as well as for granting any interim relief during the pendency of such writ petitions. For the abovestated reasons it is also imperative that when such writ petitions are entertained, the same should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and on a time- bound basis, so that the legal position is settled one way or the other.” 29) In a similar petition, the petitioners have challenged the same Rule in the case of Ajay Kumar Nag and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh (dated 26.11.2024 passed in W.P.S. No. 7624 of 2024), seeking the following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioners from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to struck down the impugned provision i.e. the Column 3 of Serial No.9 of the Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services Educational and Administrative Cadre Rules 2019 (for short, "the Rules of 2019) for being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and allow only to the B.Ed. holder candidates to be eligible for promotion to the post of principal from the post of lecturer/ Head Master middle School (trained postgraduate) as per the NCTE 62 / 70 regulation, 2014 regarding the minimum qualification. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to exclude the D.Ed./ D.El.Ed. candidates from the gradation list of of Lecturer for promotion on the post of principal by holding that they are not eligible for promotion to the post of High and Higher level teacher and further direct the state government to give promotions on the post of Principal strictly in accordance with NCTE regulations 2014. 10.5 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.” 30) This Court, in the aforesaid petition has held that the B.Ed requirement for promotion to Principal was introduced in 2012; before that, most teachers held D.Ed degrees. Applying this rule retrospectively would unfairly impact many eligible teachers. Hence, the 2019 rules are upheld, and the petition is dismissed. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference : “14. From the perusal of aforesaid rules, it is clear that so far as promotion from lecturers to the post of principal is concerned, they are required to be qualified B.Ed degree but in respect of promotion to the headmaster the requirement would be D.Ed degree. The requirement of B.Ed degree for 63 / 70 promotion to the post of principal came into force from the year 2012. By the National Council of Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) before that there is no requirement to pass B.Ed degree for promotion and, therefore, most of the teachers were having D.Ed degree which are in huge numbers. If the rules under challenge would be declared ultra vires, it would be injustice on the part of the most of the teachers who are required to be promoted on the post of Headmaster on the basis of their D.Ed degree and it will create a havoc among the teachers who are having D.Ed degree. The prescribed criteria which were brought by National Council of Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) in the year 2012 cannot be given with retrospective effect, and accordingly, the provisions of Rules, 2019 which is under challenge cannot be declared ultra vires.” 31) In the matter of Rajesh Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh (W.P.S. No. 5973 of 2023) the challenge was directed at declaring Entry 18 of Schedule II of the Rules, 2019, as ultra vires. This Court held that the Rules cannot be struck down as ultra vires unless it is demonstrated that they are manifestly arbitrary or infringe upon any fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. An enactment cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. While the chance of promotion cannot be claimed as a vested right, the right to be considered for promotion without discrimination is a legally enforceable entitlement. 32) These writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional 64 / 70 validity and administrative legality of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, which were promulgated by the competent authority under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, primarily consisting of Headmasters and Lecturers employed under the School Education Department, have assailed various provisions of the said Rules on grounds inter alia of manifest arbitrariness, denial of equal opportunity, and alleged discrimination in promotional avenues. 33) At the outset, it must be reiterated that any set of rules framed under Article 309 enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. Unless the petitioners can clearly demonstrate that the impugned rules suffer from the vice of manifest arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights, or lack of legislative competence, judicial interference is unwarranted. Courts have consistently held that policy matters, especially those pertaining to service rules, cadre structuring, and promotional criteria, fall within the domain of the executive and ought not to be interfered with unless they infringe constitutional mandates. 34) The impugned Rules were framed in the backdrop of a significant policy restructuring by the State Government wherein the management of all schools, previously governed by various departments such as the Tribal Welfare Department, Urban Administration, and Panchayat and Rural Development 65 / 70 Department, was centralized under the School Education Department. Pursuant to this decision, teachers and staff from the aforementioned departments were amalgamated into the School Education Department. Two distinct cadres were consequently created; one comprising teachers already serving in the School Education Department (“E-Cadre”) and the other comprising teachers absorbed from local bodies and other departments (“E (LB) Cadre”). The petitioners particularly object to the quota system introduced under the 2019 Rules for promotion to the post of Principal. Out of 90% of posts earmarked for promotion (the remaining 10% being for limited direct recruitment), 65% are to be filled from among Lecturers, of which 70% are reserved for Lecturers from the E-Cadre and 30% for Lecturers from the E(LB) Cadre. This classification and distribution are challenged as discriminatory by the petitioners, who assert that it unfairly privileges one cadre over another. However, such cadre differentiation, quota fixation, and promotional structuring have been undertaken as part of a larger reorganization policy, which aims to accommodate the legitimate interests of distinct service groups with varying service backgrounds, recruitment processes, and functional roles. The principle of reasonable classification, protected under Article 14 of the Constitution, permits such differentiation when it is based on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, in this 66 / 70 case, balanced cadre integration and equitable promotional opportunity following absorption from multiple departments. 35) It is a well-established position of law that no government servant has a vested or enforceable right to promotion, but only the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. A reduction in promotional chances, by itself, does not amount to an infringement of any constitutional or legal right, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or actuated by mala fides, which is not the case here. Further, the Court notes that the requirement of a “trained” qualification, such as B.Ed., for promotion to the post of Headmaster, is grounded in the functional and administrative responsibilities associated with the position. The fact that such a qualification is not mandated for Lecturers is based on the differing pedagogical and subject expertise expected of them. This distinction in eligibility criteria is prospective in nature, and cannot be said to be discriminatory or violative of Article 14, particularly when it does not operate to the detriment of those who were already in service and otherwise eligible for promotion. 36) It is also pertinent to mention that the Division Bench of this Court has already dealt with the question of the constitutional validity of the 2019 Rules in a batch of writ petitions, with W.P.S. No. 1243 of 2020, W.P.S. No. 502 of 2022 and W.P.S. No. 5973 of 2023 being the lead matters. In those cases, the Division Bench had upheld the validity of the Rules and declined to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government. The present petitioners have not 67 / 70 demonstrated any new or compelling grounds to revisit or depart from those findings. 37) The challenge regarding the cut-off date of absorption for E(LB) Cadre employee for the purpose of computing seniority and promotion eligibility is again a matter of policy. The State has deemed it appropriate to consider date to ensure parity and to provide a uniform reference point for administrative convenience. Such a decision cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be perverse or unreasonable, which it is not in this case. Additionally, the grievances raised concerning the alleged promotion of non- B.Ed. holders are factual in nature and pertain to the implementation of judicial directions, including those rendered in Shravan Kumar Pradhan (supra). These issues may warrant administrative scrutiny but do not justify a blanket challenge to the alleged set of Rules. The petitioners have not sought individual reliefs, nor have they demonstrated that the challenged provisions fall foul of any binding constitutional norms. 38) Finally, the petitioners have not invoked any of the grounds that would bring their case within the ambit of the principles laid down in Air Commodore Naveen Jain v. Union of India, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 34, which concerned the criteria for testing the constitutional validity of service rules i.e. as follows : “(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 68 / 70 (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. \(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness / unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).” 39) In light of the foregoing discussion, and upon careful examination of the 2019 Rules, the relevant constitutional provisions, and the binding judicial precedents, passed by this Court in earlier occasions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 are intra vires in accordance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, discrimination, or lack of competence. The classification between E-Cadre and E(LB) Cadre employees, the fixation of promotion quotas, and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein are based on rational and intelligible considerations and fall squarely within the domain of executive policy. No case is made out for judicial interference with the policy decisions of the State Government relating to cadre management and promotional structuring. 40) Earlier, in W.P.S. No. 3286 of 2021, along with the connected matters W.P.S. No. 3432 of 2021, W.P.S. No. 3437 of 2021, W.P.S. 69 / 70 No. 4603 of 2021, and W.P.S. No. 3441 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court has declared that the Explanation to Rule 15(1) of the Rules, 2019 is discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. Consequently, until a fresh Explanation under Rule 15(1) of the 2019 Rules is duly framed, the qualifying service of Lecturers promoted from the post of Headmaster (Middle School) (Post- Graduate) shall be reckoned from the date of their appointment as Headmaster (Middle School) (Post-Graduate). Since the aforementioned Explanation has already been declared unconstitutional, the State Government is under a legal obligation to amend the Explanation to Rule 15(1) of the 2019 Rules in conformity with the constitutional mandate. 41) With regard to the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioners concerning their individual claims, it is held that such relief cannot be granted at this stage, having regard to the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The petitioners’ individual claims do not fall within the scope of the present proceedings, which are primarily aimed at challenging the vires of the impugned Act or Rules. It is well-settled that in cases where the constitutional validity of a statute or subordinate legislation is in question, individual claims cannot be adjudicated independently in such writ petitions. The grant of relief in respect of individual claims is contingent upon the Act or Rules being declared unconstitutional or void; in such an event, the relief would follow as a direct consequence of the invalidation. Therefore, until the impugned Act or Rules are set 70 / 70 aside, no writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioners for their individual claims. 42) The other writ petitions bearing W.P.S. No. 5217 of 2019, W.P.S. No. 9546 of 2019, W.P.S. No. 438 of 2020, W.P.S. No. 1541 of 2020, W.P.S. No. 1718 of 2021, W.P.S. No. 5 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 561 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 1302 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 1779 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 2220 of 2025, W.P.S. No. 2368 of 2025 and W.P.S. No. 4077 of 2025 are dismissed. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the 2019 Rules is found to be devoid of merit. 43) Accordingly, W.P.S. No. 4447 of 2025 is allowed in part. The respondent–State is directed to amend the Explanation under Rule 15(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2019, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 09.03.2023 passed in W.P.S. No. 3286 of 2021 (Satyadev Verma and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another), as well as in the connected matters bearing W.P.S. No. 3432 of 2021, W.P.S. No. 3437 of 2021, W.P.S. No. 4603 of 2021, and W.P.S. No. 3441 of 2021. 44) The interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 stands vacated. The parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna