Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 2186 of 2021
Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Mishra, Aged About
54 Years, UDT, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Block
Bemetara, Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Public Education, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Shri Shreshta Gupta, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
01.04.2021
Heard.
1. The issue raised in the petition has already been settled in different
rounds of litigation.
2. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted in the year 2010,
which was subject of challenge on the basis of the rules on which the
promotion was made. Initially, the High Court set aside the rules and
thereby the promotion was annulled. Against the order of the High
Court the aggrieved party preferred a petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded back the
matter for re-hearing. Subsequently again petitions were filed before
the High Court bearing WPS Nos. 4012 of 2010, 4581 of 2010 and
4891 of 2010 wherein order was passed on 01.08.2017(Annexure P-
4).
3. The relevant part of the judgment dated 01.08.2017 reads as under:-
"12. The persons who have sought intervention following
the order of remit passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had pointed out that they had succeeded and were
promoted following the limited departmental examination,
but have however been demoted as a result of judgment
passed by this Court on 05.04.2011 which has since been
set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the order
of remit made on 16.09.2014. Since we do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned 2008 Rules or the
advertisements and the limited departmental examinations
conducted, and also because these writ petitions are bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties inspite of due
opportunity, the action taken under the impugned Rules
and the impugned selection have necessarily to be given
effect to. This means that those persons who have been
reverted or promoted as a consequence of the judgment
rendered by this Court on 05.04.2011, which has since
been annulled by the Apex Court through the order of
remand dated 16.09.2014, have to be restored to
respective positions that they held before 05.04.2011.
Obviously, the 2014 Rules would then operate on such
fact situation."
4. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on
01.08.2017, State authority passed an order on 12.03.2018
(Annexure P-5) whereby it was observed as under:-
**ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj }kjk ;kfpdk dzekad [email protected] esa
ifjr vkns'k fnukad 01-08-2017 ,oa dk;kZy; egkvf/koDrk eku-mPp-
U;k;ky; fcykliqj ds fof/kd lykg fnukad 03-10-2017 vuqlkj 05-04-
2011 ds iwoZ dh fLFkfr esa dk;Zjr iz/kku ikBd iwoZ ek/;fed 'kkyk ds in
ij iwoZ esa inksUur f'k{[email protected] f'k{[email protected]/kku ikBd] iwoZ ek/;fed 'kkyk
ftUgksusa inksUur in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk] mUgsa inksUur in ij
inksUufr frfFk ls ofj"Brk dh ik=rk gksxhA**
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order has
been passed by the State, the same has not been carried out in its
true spirit and the present promotion is carried out and again it would
lead to litigation. Therefore, he prays that representation of the
petitioner may be decided.
6. Perused the documents.
7. From perusal of the order of this Court which was subsequently
passed on 01.08.2017, it appears that pursuant to the observation
made in Para 12, State authority has already passed the order on
12.03.2018 (Annexure P-5) which purports that the persons who
were promoted and had taken the charge they should be restored
back to their original place along with the seniority. In view of this,
State is directed to comply its own order accordingly after verification
of facts. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Khatai
