Deo Kumar Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.05 10:37:06 +0530 2025:CGHC:10597-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 649 of 2024 Deo Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sarju Prasad Gupta, Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As Upper Division Teacher At St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Director, Directorate Of Poblic Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Commissioner, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector, District- Sarguaja (C.G.) 6 - District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) 7 - St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.), Through Its Principal. 8 - Manager, St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Adv along with Ms. Ritika Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. and Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Ritika Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6 / State as well as Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents No. 7 and 8 on I.A. No.02/2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 1132 of 2022 (Deo Kumar Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.01.2000, the writ petitioner 3 was appointed as 'UDT' in respondent/School. Being senior most teacher and eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer, name of writ petitioner was proposed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) vide its recommendation dated 07.08.2020 and further recommended by the Competent Authority concerned to the respondent/School administration for issuance of promotion order in favour of the writ petitioner, but respondent No.7/School has not issued any promotion order. Suddenly vide orders dated 07.01.2022 and order dated 13.01.2022, proposal of promotion of the writ petitioner has been cancelled in the light of amendment dated 02.11.1995 (Madhya Pradesh Non-Government Educational Institution (Promotion of Teachers and other Employees working in Schools) Rules 1988, (for short, 'Rules of 1988'). Hence, the writ petitioner / appellant herein preferred WPS No. 1132/2022, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.02.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners has preferred this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstance of the facts. The learned Single Judge failed to observe the fact that, the appellant is the most suitable candidate to be promoted as lecturer in the Science faculty as the appellant is the senior most faculty in science and also failed to observed that the order dated 07/01/2022, cancelling the 4 promotion of the appellant from the post of Upper Division Teacher to Lecturer in Science faculty is based on wrong interpretation of law. The appellant is going to retire on 31/03/2025 and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge has deprived the appellant to bear fruits of the hard work and sincerity of the appellant. The Learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 07/08/2020 considered the case of the appellant and has made observations which are in complete consonance with the Rules, 1988. From the language of the subrule 5 of Rules, 1995 it appears that its object is very clear that the power of promotion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and all the promotion post cannot be filled by promotion the UDTs of one subject and depriving the UDTs of other subjects also no enquiry was conducted prior to cancelling the promotion order of the appellant. Lastly, the Learned Single Judge failed to observe the fact that the action by the respondents suffers from malafide as previously also the second time scale pay was not granted even after the order passed by the Collector Surguja and the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by filing WPS no. 9490/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 15/12/2023 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the appellant and pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23/08/2024, the benefit of second time pay scale was granted to the appellant. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. Note 5 of The M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Schoolon Main Karyarat Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Padonnati) Rules, 1988, which is relevant for deciding the issue involved in this appeal, reads as under:- “For promotion to the post of lecturer subject-wise seniority should be adopted and promotion should be made within the subject, but the educational qualification shall remain the same as prescribed by the rule. There shall be only one lecturer of one subject in a faculty.” 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observed that undisputedly, the DPC made its recommendation for promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Biology). However, perusal of comment No.5 in Scheduled of Rules of 1988 (inserted in the Rules vide notification/amendment dated 02.11.1995), it is clear that 6 promotion should be taken only subject wise. Further, it is contention of respondent/School that no sanctioned post of Lecturer in Biology subject is available with the School, which was not been duly rebutted by learned counsel for the writ petitioner orally or documentary. Hence, it was clear that writ petitioner is not entitled to get any promotion to the post of Lecturer (Biology) as there is no post of Lecturer (Biology) lying vacant or sanctioned in the respondent/School. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and Note No.5 of The M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshawn Sanstha (Schoolon Main Karyarat Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ki Padonnati) Rules, 1988 and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet