Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10350 of 2025 1 - Girish Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Parikrama Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Nehru Ward No. 04, New Ledri Tahsil Manedragarh District- Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Amir Kumar Patle S/o Late Shri Atmaram Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Pre- Matric St Boys Hostel Manedragarh Tahsil Manedragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Welfare Development Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Police Station Rakhi Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department Block -D, Ground Floor Indrawati Bhavan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For State-respondents : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 03-09-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.04 19:23:54 +0530 Order on Board 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition against the impugned or- der dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Respondent No. 2, and prayed the following reliefs in their writ petition:- 2 “i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to produce the entire records of the case particularly the records of the petitioner, for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10/06/2025 (Annexure P/3) respondent No.2/Under Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur and con- sequently the entire counseling proceedings being pursuant thereto. Iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct counseling proceedings for Hostel Superintendent (C) afresh at State level for total 1732 posts including 755 posts on which deputationists are working. iv) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. This petition, may be allowed. with cost.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 10- 11-2015 and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 19-03-2015, to the post of Hostel Superintendents (Grade-D). The petitioner No. 1 was promoted on 22- 07-2022, and the petitioner No. 2 was promoted on 30-06-2023 to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Gade-C). The respondent No. 2 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 post- ing of the promoted Hostel Superintendents. The petitioners made their rep- resentation on 13-06-2025 to the respondent No. 2, but no action has been taken on the representation till date. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-D) in the year 2015. After 7-8 years of their service, they have been promoted to the post of Hos - 3 tel Superintendent (Grade-C). Their 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 post- ing of the petitioners at the district and/or divisional level is bad in law. He would also submit that the name of the petitioner No. 1 is at Sr. No. 366 of the divisional level gradation list of candidates of Hostel Superintendent Grade-C, and petitioner No. 2 is at Sr. No. 155 of that list. Thus, there is no proper option for the petitioners to opt the convenient hostels. He would also submit that the procedure adopted by the State Government is against Rule 2(i) of the Rules of 2011, which mandates that the selection committee must consist of the appointing authority. The gradation list of the petitioners is state-wise, and the entire service conditions are governed at the state level. The State Government has issued an order on 10-06-2025, but has not followed Clause 3.2 of the said order and their seniority is not considered. 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. In C-Cadre, there are 1732 posts of hostel superintendents available, and all the posts of hostel superintendents of C- Cadre are promotional posts. The State Government has given the details of 120 posts of T-Cadre. Therefore, the petitioners do not have any option to choose the convenient place for their posting, and they are being treated as district-level employees. The petitioners have been promoted in the years 2023 and 2025, respectively, but a proper state-level option has not been provided to them. 4. It is also submitted that a total of 977 candidates are in Grade-C; however, the option of 755 posts is not available, in which the teachers T-Cadre are 4 working on deputation. Despite the direction of the State Government that the teachers of T-Cadre, who are on deputation, should be repatriated to their parent department, they have not been repatriated. He would also submit that the total sanctioned posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C are 1732, out of which a total of 489 posts are filled and 1243 posts are vacant. Out of 1243 posts, they are not showing the filled posts from the teachers T- Cadre, who are on deputation. Since the posts of hostel superintendents Grade-C are 100% promotional posts, they should be given priority in counselling. It is also submitted that the seniority is also affected, and they have no option to choose the place of preference. 5. 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 candi- dates 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. He would further submit that there are a total of 1732 sanctioned posts of hostel superintendent (Grade-C), whereas the counselling is being done for a total of 977 posts, as there are only 977 candidates available for posting, including the petitioners. A total of 120 posts of hostel superintendent Grade-C have been excluded from counselling because the Teachers/ Lecturers/Headmasters from T-Cadre and Teacher (LB-T Cadre), who were working as In-charge hostel superintendent even before 2015. The state gov- ernment 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 5 superintendent Grade-C, the guideline is issued on 10-06-2025 for conducting the transparent counselling. No prejudice would be caused by the order dated 10-06-2025, and their 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings and the documents annexed with the petition by the parties. 7. The main grievance of the petitioners is that to give benefits to the teachers T-Cadre, who are in charge of the hostel superintendent, clause 3.3 has been provided in the order dated 10-06-2025, by which the promotional benefits of the hostel superintendents of Grade-D for the post of hostel superintendents of Grade-C is curtailed, which affects the 100% promotional post. The places where they 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. The submission of the petitioners 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, including the petitioners. 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 petitioners are not prejudiced. Even otherwise, the seniority, 6 pay scale, etc., are not affected by the counselling or the provisions made for the In-charge hostel superintendent. 8. As per the submissions of the parties, it transpires that a total of 1732 posts of hostel superintendent of Grade-C are sanctioned, in which 489 posts are filled up and 1243 posts are vacant. Only 120 posts of hostel superintendents are excluded, in which the teachers/lecturers/headmasters (T-Cadre) are working on deputation even before 2015. If the State Government has framed a policy for those In-charge hostel superintendents who are working on deputation, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary. The order dated 10- 06-2025 is not for the promotion to the post of hostel superintendent, but only for the counselling for the posting of the promoted hostel superintendents of Grade-C. 9. The next submission of the petitioners is that the post of the petitioners 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 mis- conceived, 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 10. 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 can- 7 didate 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, 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 pub - lished as on 01-04-2024, in which the names of the petitioners are at Sr. No. 366 and 155, respectively. The vacant post has also been displayed in the list issued by the department in the division, and the petitioners have their liberty to make their representation for their posting at another division/district in the state, as provided under Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of the order dated 10-06- 2025. 11. 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. 12. Consequently, this Court do not find any merit in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge