Dayal Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5920 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                     NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 521 of 2022
Dayal Singh S/o Late J. P. Singh Aged About 43 Years Posted At Govt.
Higher Secondary School, Indurai, Kawardha, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
                                                              ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department of
      School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
      Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2.    The Directorate of Public Education Chhattisgarh, Indrawati
      Bhawan, Block-3, First Floor, New Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur,
      District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3.    Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
      Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur (C.G.)
4.    Pramod Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Ram Khilawan Shukla Aged About
      51 Years Lecturer, Posted At Govt. Naveen Girls Higher Secondary
      School, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
5.    Sunil Kumar Keshri S/o Late M.L. Keshri Aged About 53 Years
      Lecturer, Posted At Govt. High School, Baiharsari, Kawardha,
      District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
6.    Thakur Prasad Nayak S/o Shri Baldau Prasad Nayak Aged About
      46 Years Lecturer, Posted At Govt. Higher School, Maharajpur,
      Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

21.09.2022

Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing

for respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel,

appearing for respondent No.3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Arvind

Dubey, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the intervenors are

present.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 19.07.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.721 of 2021,

whereby the writ petition was disposed of directing to convene

Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') to consider promotion to the

post of Principal from Lecturer expeditiously in accordance with law.

3. The request made by the intervenors to intervene in the matter was

declined on the ground that they would not be adversely affected by the

relief claimed in the writ petition.

4. The writ petition was filed by five writ petitioners and the present

appeal is preferred by only one writ petitioner.

5. In this writ appeal, prayer is made that the respondents are to be

directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the next

higher post before convening DPC for considering the cases of the

Additional Block Education Officer.

6. In the context of the prayer made in this appeal, it will be

appropriate to take note of the prayers made in the writ petition :

"I. That,this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

to issue writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s) against the

respondent's authority by directing them to

immediately convene the meeting of the D.P.C. for

consideration the case of the petitioners for

promotion on the post of principal from his due dates

and also direct them to grant all the consequential

services benefits

from its due date, i.e. January 2016 in accordance

with law.

II. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased

to issue appropriate writ's/order's / direction's/ relief's

which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in

the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. When the prayer as made in the present appeal was not a relief

prayed for in the writ petition, it cannot be countenanced that the learned

Single Judge has committed wrong in not considering the prayers made

in this writ appeal.

8. The appellant has projected a different case in this writ appeal.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, no interference is called for with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ

appeal is dismissed. No cost.

                         Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                    (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                     Chief Justice                               Judge

Anu