Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8152 of 2025 1 - Manu Tripathi Mandal W/o Rahul Kumar Mandal Aged About 29 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted And Working As Grade 'c' Hostel Superintendent At Schedule Caste Adarsh Girls Ashram, Devrikhurd, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh R/o House No. Jeth-116, Usha Upvan Society, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, (Tribal Welfare) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Old Composite Building Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08-08-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.08 18:07:33 +0530 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Respondent No. 1, and prayed the following reliefs in their writ petition:- 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the respondents. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash clause 4(3) of the Guideline dated 10/06/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.1. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to prepare the proposal as per clause 4 (2) of the Guideline dated 10/06/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.1. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 19-03- 2015, to the post of Hostel Superintendents (Grade-D), and was posted at Pre-metric Scheduled Caste Girls Hostel, Nagri, District Dhamtari. In the year 2017, she was transferred to Pre-metric Scheduled Tribes Girls Hostel, Kota, District Bilaspur. The petitioner was promoted on 30-09-2022 to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Gade-C), and she was posted at Scheduled Caste Adarsh Girls Ashram, Devrikhurd, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur. The respondent No. 1 issued an order on 10-06-2025 for conducting counselling of the Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C) for the purposes of their posting. By the order dated 10-06-2025, a three-level committee has been constituted by the State Government for the posting of the promoted Hostel Superintendents. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-D) in the year 2015. After 7 years of her service, she has been promoted to the post of Hostel 3 Superintendent (Grade-C). Her services are governed by the Chhattisgarh Tribal and Scheduled Casts Welfare Sub-Ordinate Educational Service Cadre (Class-III Non-Ministerial) Service Rules, 2011 (in short “the Rules of 2011”), and the post of Hostel Superintendent is a State Cadre post. Now the respondents are conducting counselling district-wise, and the posting of the petitioner at the district and/or divisional level is bad in law. He would also submit that on 20-03-2024, the gradation list of Hostel Superintendent was issued, in which the petitioner’s name is at Sr. No. 157. He would further submit that Clause 4.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025 provides that preference would be given to the husband and wife, who are in government service. The petitioner’s name is above the other candidates‘, whose husbands are also Hostel superintendent Grade-C, but they are given preference over and above the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is deprived of choosing her convenient place of posting. The proposed list as per Clause 4.2 of the order dated 10-06-2025, is also not followed. The seniority of the petitioner is ignored, and the other Hostel Superintendents have given priority, which is arbitrary and violative of Clause 3.2 of the said order. Clause 3.3 is also violative as the teachers of T-Cadre, who are on deputation, and working as hostel superintendents and working with the department before 2015 on deputation, those institutions are not to be considered as vacant. 4. Responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel would submit that initially, the candidates are calling for district-level counselling only to rationalise the vacant posts at rural and urban areas. If there is no post available in the district and the candidates are willing to go to any other district, the option should be obtained and recommended to the Divisional Level, and the proposal of the candidates who are willing to go outside of the division should be sent to the State Level Committee. A total of 120 posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C have been excluded from counselling because the 4 Teachers/Lecturers/Headmasters from T-Cadre and Teacher (LB-T Cadre), who were working as In-charge hostel superintendent even before 2015. The state government has taken a policy decision not to disturb their posting. He would further submit that the decision has been taken to facilitate the candidates who are already working in their districts, and they have the right to choose their convenient place, state-wise, and to make their representations. Since the number of hostel superintendents Grade-D have been promoted to hostel superintendent Grade-C, the guideline is issued on 10-06-2025 for conducting the transparent counselling. As per Clause 4.3 of the said order, priority was given to the candidates based on husband and wife. He would also submit that from the documents annexed with the petition by the petitioner herself as Annexure-A, filed on 15-07-2025, clearly shows that the priority was given to husband and wife, then differently abled and then deserted women candidate. From the general list, there are ascending serial numbers in which the candidates were called for counselling, and the petitioner’s name is at Sr. No. 27 in the said list, Annexure-A. Thus, there is no arbitrariness in the counselling, and there is no merit in the petition. No prejudice would be caused by the order dated 10- 06-2025, and her service status has not been affected. The petitioners have been called for counselling as per their seniority. It is also submitted by him that the Tribal Development Department of the state issued a circular on 10- 03-2015, and Clause 7 of the said circular provided that until the posts of hostel superintendent are filled up by recruitment, the already working hostel superintendents shall be considered on deputation as In-charge. Thus, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings and the documents annexed with the petition by the parties. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she, being the senior, has not been given priority, and her junior has been given priority, which is a violation 5 of Clause 4.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025. She tried to demonstrate that in the list opted by the candidates, in Sr. No. 2, Smt. Sweta Gupta, who is junior to the petitioner and placed at Sr. No. 194 in the gradation list, has been given priority. From perusal of the list (Annexure-A), it transpires that from Sr. No. 1 to 10, all the candidates are given priority on the ground of husband and wife, from Sr. No. 11 to 14, all the candidates are differently abled candidates, and Sr. No. 15 is a deserted woman candidate. Thereafter, the candidates are from regular serial numbers in ascending order. Clause 4.3 of the order dated 10.06.2025 provides the preference to be given to the husband-wife, ailment, differently abled candidates and then deserted women candidates. The list Annexure-A is prepared strictly in accordance with Clause 4.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025, and this Court does not find any infirmity that warrants interference in it. It is necessary to reproduce Clause 4.3 of the order dated 10-06-2025, which reads as under:- 4-3 ”’kkldh; lsod ifr@iRuh ,oa fpfdRlk dkj.kksa ¼xaHkhj chekjh dSalj tSls VfeZuy rFkk vR;ar xaHkhj chekjh] fdMuh [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k Mk;fyfll djokus ;k vksiu gkVZ ltZjh ds dkj.k fu;fer tkap djkuk vko’;d gks vkSj orZeku inLFkkiuk ds LFkku ij ,slh lqfo/kk miyC/k u gks rks ftyk esfMdy cksMZ dh vuqla’kk ij lacaf/kr dh inLFkkiuk fpfdRlk lqfo/kk okys LFkku ij fd;k tk ldsxk rFkk fnO;kax 'kkldh; lsodksa fo/kok] ifjR;Drk ,dy efgyk dh inLFkkiuk gsrq izkIr vkosnuksa ij izkFkfedrk nsrs gq, lfefr }kjk fopkj fd;k tkoasA lkFk gh foHkkxh; Nk=kokl@vkJeksa esa foxr dbZ o"kksZa ls izfrfu;qfDr ij dk;Zjr f’k{kd ¼Vh&laoxZ ,oa f’k{kk foHkkx ls o"kZ 2015 ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr½ dh inLFk laLFkkvksa dks fjDr ugha ekuk tkosxkA 7. The submissions of the petitioner that the places where teachers T-Cadre are working have also been left open for the option of the hostel superintendents of Grade-C, who have been promoted, but in the counselling, their places are shown to be filled up posts, is not appealing for the reason that the state government, on instructions, submitted that only 977 candidates are available in the state for their posting as hostel superintendent Grade-C, 6 including the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that any promotional avenue is affected by the counselling or keeping the post of hostel superintendent vacant, on which the Teachers/Lecturers/Headmasters of T- Cadre are on deputation and working as In-charge hostel superintendent. A sufficient number of posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C are vacant, and the rights of the petitioner is not prejudiced. Even otherwise, the seniority, pay scale, etc., are not affected by the counselling or the provisions made for the In-charge hostel superintendent. 8. The next submission of the petitioner is that the post of the petitioner is a state-level cadre, but the counselling is being done district level, and thereby, the petitioners are deprived of choosing the place of their choice at the state level. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived, in view of the provisions of Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025. It is necessary to quote here Clause 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025, which reads as under:- 3.7 ftyk Lrj ij in fjDr ugha gksus ,oa LosPNk ls inksUufr mijkar laHkkx varxZr vU; ftys esa tkuk pkgrs muls 03 ftyksa dk fodYi izkIr dj ftyk Lrjh; lfefr dh vuq’kalk ds lkFk laHkkx Lrjh; lfefr dks izsf"kr fd;k tk,A 3.8 laHkkx ls ckgj inLFkkiuk pkgus okys v/kh{kdksa dk izLrko lh/ks jkT; Lrjh; lfefr dks izsf"kr fd;k tk,A 9. From the contents of clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06-2025, it is amply clear that there is no restriction on the hostel superintendent Grade-C to choose the place within the state, and their representation is to be considered by the state-level committee. There is no arbitrariness in it because, for the purposes of rationalization, and for posting of the hostel superintendents in rural and urban areas, it is necessary to do so. If any candidate wants to go to another Division, they may make his/her representation to the State level committee, which will be considered by the said committee. It is nowhere mentioned that they cannot be posted out of the District or Division. Further, from the document annexed with the petition, 7 it transpires that the candidates have been called for counselling as per their seniority. It is not the division-wise seniority list, but it is the state-wise seniority list published as on 01-04-2024, in which the names of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 157. 10. In a similar matter of W.P.S. No. 5958 of 2025 (Vijay Kumar Yadu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), vide order dated 02-07-2025, this court has decided the issue involved in the present case, which are identical and therefore, this Court deem it appropriate, not to take a view other than what has been taken in W.P.S. No. 5958 of 2025, decided on 02- 07-2025. 11. Consequently, this Court do not find any merit in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil